{"id":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d1f04f-de9e-4383-9716-bc3847408ee2","slug":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061","title":"Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370521/mahmud-v-mahmud-no-fa94-0071257-s-jan-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370521","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud Date: 1996-01-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d1f04f-de9e-4383-9716-bc3847408ee2","slug":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061","title":"Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370521/mahmud-v-mahmud-no-fa94-0071257-s-jan-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370521","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d1f04f-de9e-4383-9716-bc3847408ee2","slug":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061","title":"Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370521/mahmud-v-mahmud-no-fa94-0071257-s-jan-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370521","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: is ordered sold and the net proceeds remaining after payment of normal costs of sale (taxes commission and adjustments) shall be divided 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband. 9. The plaintiff's pension plan shall be equally divided between the parties, by QDRO and the court retains jurisdiction to enter said order. 10. The plaintiff is to name the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 11. The plaintiff shall transfer $19,000 00 of the M.D. Health plan proceeds to the defendant. He shall retain the balance and be responsible for all"}
{"id":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d1f04f-de9e-4383-9716-bc3847408ee2","slug":"abdul-w-mahmud-v-shireen-mahmud-3366061","title":"Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370521/mahmud-v-mahmud-no-fa94-0071257-s-jan-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370521","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: half of the 1994 tax refund. 8. The Bear Rock Road property is ordered sold and the net proceeds remaining after payment of normal costs of sale (taxes commission and adjustments) shall be divided 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband. 9. The plaintiff's pension plan shall be equally divided between the parties, by QDRO and the court retains jurisdiction to enter said order. 10. The plaintiff is to name the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 11. The plaintiff shall transfer $19,000 00 of the M.D. Health plan proceeds to the defend"}
{"id":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd8348ea-1c07-4376-9aa0-fb6419d83989","slug":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192","title":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368652/feagin-v-feagin-no-51-59-62-dec-13-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-13","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin. Date: 1991-12-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd8348ea-1c07-4376-9aa0-fb6419d83989","slug":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192","title":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368652/feagin-v-feagin-no-51-59-62-dec-13-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-13","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd8348ea-1c07-4376-9aa0-fb6419d83989","slug":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192","title":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368652/feagin-v-feagin-no-51-59-62-dec-13-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-13","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: week as support for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c. 60 percent of the balance to the plaintiff and"}
{"id":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd8348ea-1c07-4376-9aa0-fb6419d83989","slug":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192","title":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368652/feagin-v-feagin-no-51-59-62-dec-13-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-13","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he defendant the sum of $55 per week as support for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c."}
{"id":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd8348ea-1c07-4376-9aa0-fb6419d83989","slug":"agnes-feagin-v-willie-feagin-3364192","title":"Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368652/feagin-v-feagin-no-51-59-62-dec-13-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-13","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: upport for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c. 60 percent of the balance to the plaintiff and"}
{"id":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aef22fa-3926-40c9-8c60-e7b02e83e414","slug":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445","title":"Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343930/crolius-v-crolius-no-fa92-04-06-07-may-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-05-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius Date: 1994-05-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aef22fa-3926-40c9-8c60-e7b02e83e414","slug":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445","title":"Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343930/crolius-v-crolius-no-fa92-04-06-07-may-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-05-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aef22fa-3926-40c9-8c60-e7b02e83e414","slug":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445","title":"Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343930/crolius-v-crolius-no-fa92-04-06-07-may-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-05-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: wing: 1. one half of the 1993 tax Refund; 2. one half of the 1993 bonuses currently held in escrow by Plaintiff's counsel; 3. one half of the present value of the plaintiff's, Times Mirror Pension Plan and the Ziff Corporation pension plan by means of a QDRO. H. Debts 1. The plaintiff shall pay forthwith the unpaid Pendente Lite award of $2000. 2. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the unreimbursed medical sums due to the Langley Porter Hospital, UCSF, in San Francisco, and he shall make arrangements for the payment of the balance due not to exceed $3720. 3. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for th"}
{"id":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aef22fa-3926-40c9-8c60-e7b02e83e414","slug":"allen-p-crolius-v-judy-ann-crolius-3339445","title":"Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343930/crolius-v-crolius-no-fa92-04-06-07-may-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-05-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: shown on her affidavit as they are not her real expenses at this time. The plaintiff has a base salary of approximately $52,488 per year. According to his Financial Affidavit, he nets $2904.67 per month which includes a deduction of $175. per month for his pension. In addition to his base salary, the plaintiff receives a bonus, although the bonus is not guaranteed. In 1993, the plaintiff received a net bonus of $18,000. In 1994, the plaintiff received a net bonus of $9700. In the two years prior to 1992 the plaintiff averaged $12,000. in bonuses. The plaintiff sells advertising for Skiing Magazine and his bonuses"}
{"id":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d418a7e-283c-4363-8ea7-67cf7205c51c","slug":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974","title":"Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364440/stafford-v-stafford-no-fa90-04-92-88s-may-23-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364440","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-23","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford Date: 1995-05-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d418a7e-283c-4363-8ea7-67cf7205c51c","slug":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974","title":"Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364440/stafford-v-stafford-no-fa90-04-92-88s-may-23-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364440","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-23","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d418a7e-283c-4363-8ea7-67cf7205c51c","slug":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974","title":"Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364440/stafford-v-stafford-no-fa90-04-92-88s-may-23-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364440","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-23","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e of Connecticut for the year 1994 for State Income tax purposes in the approximate amount of $382. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to one third of the defendant's pension benefits. The plaintiff's one third interest shall be secured by means of a QDRO. Income Tax Deductions The defendant shall be entitled to claim the two minor children as dependents for Income Tax purposes, provided he is current with the child support payments as of December 31st. Life Insurance The defendant shall name the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policy which is represented to"}
{"id":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d418a7e-283c-4363-8ea7-67cf7205c51c","slug":"allison-stafford-v-jeffrey-stafford-3359974","title":"Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364440/stafford-v-stafford-no-fa90-04-92-88s-may-23-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364440","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-23","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iff as lump sum property settlement the sum of $5000 within 90 days of date. Debts The defendant shall be responsible for the full amount owed to the State of Connecticut for the year 1994 for State Income tax purposes in the approximate amount of $382. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to one third of the defendant's pension benefits. The plaintiff's one third interest shall be secured by means of a QDRO. Income Tax Deductions The defendant shall be entitled to claim the two minor children as dependents for Income Tax purposes, provided he is current with the child support payments as of December 31st"}
{"id":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e67df6d-13d6-40e5-9a6e-ed159b16cb75","slug":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management","title":"AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent","citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844186/american-coatings-assn-v-south-coast-air-quality-management-district/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844186","extracted_docket_number":"S177823 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-06-25","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent Citation: 54 Cal. 4th 446. Extracted reporter citation: 54 Cal. 4th 446. Docket: S177823 Date. Date: 2012-06-25. Machine-draft public headnote: AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e67df6d-13d6-40e5-9a6e-ed159b16cb75","slug":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management","title":"AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent","citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844186/american-coatings-assn-v-south-coast-air-quality-management-district/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844186","extracted_docket_number":"S177823 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-06-25","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e67df6d-13d6-40e5-9a6e-ed159b16cb75","slug":"american-coatings-association-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-south-coast-air-quality-management","title":"AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent","citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844186/american-coatings-assn-v-south-coast-air-quality-management-district/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844186","extracted_docket_number":"S177823 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 Cal. 4th 446","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-06-25","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: Filed 6/25/12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S177823 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/3 G040122 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY ) DISTRICT, ) ) Orange County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. 03CC00007 ___________________________________ ) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) is charged with regulating nonvehicular air pollution emissions in a large area that encompasses much of Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, regions that have some of the worst air pollution in the country. This case concerns the District‟s 2002 amendments to its Rule 1113, which limits certain pollution-causi"}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr. Date: 1993-05-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall indemnify and hold harmless the plaintiff from any liability on said encumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long I"}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long Island, his pension CT Page 4840 with Chase Manhattan Bank, the settlement proceeds from his pending litigation with European-American Bank and his stock and stock options in First National Bank of Long Island Corporation. d. The plaintiff shall retain her bank accounts, her IRA, her annuity and her pension with St. Raphae"}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): cumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long Island, his pension CT Page 4840 with Chase Manha"}
{"id":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"790b6f95-e68f-42e1-b20f-61316a00e191","slug":"andree-lupinacci-v-arthur-lupinacci-jr-3370133","title":"Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374590/lupinacci-v-lupinacci-no-fa92-0126106-s-may-18-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374590","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-05-18","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: emnify and hold harmless the plaintiff from any liability on said encumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long I"}
{"id":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3525aada-3d65-4ffd-947c-654275717666","slug":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491","title":"Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343976/mckenzie-v-mckenzie-no-fa90-027-66-45-s-mar-13-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343976","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-13","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie Date: 1997-03-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3525aada-3d65-4ffd-947c-654275717666","slug":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491","title":"Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343976/mckenzie-v-mckenzie-no-fa90-027-66-45-s-mar-13-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343976","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-13","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3525aada-3d65-4ffd-947c-654275717666","slug":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491","title":"Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343976/mckenzie-v-mckenzie-no-fa90-027-66-45-s-mar-13-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343976","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-13","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . The only way the bill could be paid would be if there is any equity left in the house but he has agreed to give that to the defendant. The only other basis for payment would be his pension with the city. The court orders the defendant's counsel to prepare a QDRO for $500.00 for the contempt proceedings only and the court will sign it. The court does approve both agreements with respect to the child support and the sale of the house and makes the provisions orders of the court. The court further orders the plaintiff to pay $500.00 as sanctions for the contempt proceedings. The court sees no basis for ordering any"}
{"id":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3525aada-3d65-4ffd-947c-654275717666","slug":"andrew-mckenzie-v-lisa-mckenzie-3339491","title":"Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343976/mckenzie-v-mckenzie-no-fa90-027-66-45-s-mar-13-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343976","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-13","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: testimony do establish his present inability to pay out of his current wages. The only way the bill could be paid would be if there is any equity left in the house but he has agreed to give that to the defendant. The only other basis for payment would be his pension with the city. The court orders the defendant's counsel to prepare a QDRO for $500.00 for the contempt proceedings only and the court will sign it. The court does approve both agreements with respect to the child support and the sale of the house and makes the provisions orders of the court. The court further orders the plaintiff to pay $500.00 as sanctio"}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot Docket: number 70267. Date: 1995-01-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ate the defendant wife as irrevocable beneficiary on so much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husban"}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husband shall pay to the defendant wife, the sum of four hundred dollars per week for a period of three years, the sum of three hundred fifty dollars a week for a period of three years, and the sum of three hundred dollars for a period CT Page 666 of three years, so that"}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): o much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husband shall pay to the defen"}
{"id":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c176a16d-bfae-432b-a1ca-fb81974df196","slug":"andrew-vandersloot-v-mildred-vandersloot-3341860","title":"Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346344/vandersloot-v-vandersloot-no-fa-70267-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346344","extracted_docket_number":"number 70267","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fendant wife as irrevocable beneficiary on so much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husban"}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith Date: 1999-05-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend the orders until they have been accepted by the Plans Administrators. 9. The plaintiff is the custodian of an account containing approximately $132,000 which has heretofore been segregated to pay for the educational expenses of the daughter, Courtney. The plain"}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: m of $425 per week. Said alimony shall be payable until the happening of the first of the following events: the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. 8. The defendant has a 401K with Morgan Stanley, an IRA with Morgan Stanley and a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend"}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rance. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $425 per week. Said alimony shall be payable until the happening of the first of the following events: the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. 8. The defendant has a 401K with Morgan Stanley, an IRA with Morgan Stanley and a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be nec"}
{"id":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f265f922-4a16-47d2-a078-e85913ba293e","slug":"ann-smith-v-todd-r-smith-3356571","title":"Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361037/smith-v-smith-no-fa97-0326660-s-may-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361037","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-05-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: al Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend the orders until they have been accepted by the Plans Administrators. 9. The plaintiff is the custodian of an account containing approximately $132,000 which has heretofore been segregated to pay for the educational expenses of the daughter, Courtney. The plain"}
{"id":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e96242-f958-42e6-8518-c879b246dd66","slug":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092","title":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358560/burtaccio-v-burtaccio-no-fa01-0341966s-aug-16-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358560","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-16","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio. Date: 2002-08-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e96242-f958-42e6-8518-c879b246dd66","slug":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092","title":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358560/burtaccio-v-burtaccio-no-fa01-0341966s-aug-16-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358560","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-16","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e96242-f958-42e6-8518-c879b246dd66","slug":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092","title":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358560/burtaccio-v-burtaccio-no-fa01-0341966s-aug-16-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358560","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-16","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: following: Checking with First Union Bank, Savings with First Union Bank, CM Life IRA, Fidelity IRA, and Panorama. The Wife's financial affidavit lists the following: Savings with Bank of Danbury, Checking with Bank of Danbury and IRA with MassMutual. If a QDRO Order is necessary, the parties shall equally share the cost of preparation of same. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over the accounts until they are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. ATTORNEY FEES Except as provided for herein, the parties s"}
{"id":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e96242-f958-42e6-8518-c879b246dd66","slug":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092","title":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358560/burtaccio-v-burtaccio-no-fa01-0341966s-aug-16-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358560","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-16","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ds, rather than the dollar amount of said stocks and bonds. IRA ACCOUNTS, CHECKING AND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all their IRA accounts, Checking and Savings accounts, Deferred Compensation Accounts, Retirement Accounts, as listed on their financial affidavits. The Husband's financial affidavit lists the following: Checking with First Union Bank, Savings with First Union Bank, CM Life IRA, Fidelity IRA, and Panorama. The Wife's financial affidavit lists the following: Savings with Bank of Danbury, Checking with Bank of Danbury and IRA with MassMutual. If a QDRO Order is"}
{"id":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e96242-f958-42e6-8518-c879b246dd66","slug":"arthur-v-burtaccio-jr-v-peggy-ann-burtaccio-3354092","title":"Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358560/burtaccio-v-burtaccio-no-fa01-0341966s-aug-16-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358560","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-16","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: iming a dissolution of marriage, an equitable division of the assets of the parties and other relief as law and equity might provide. The Wife filed an Answer and Cross Complaint dated March 14, 2001 claiming a dissolution of the marriage, alimony, a fair and equitable distribution of the assets and liabilities and other relief as law and equity might provide. No children were born issue of this marriage. However, the Wife had two sons from a previous marriage whom the Husband cared for and treated as his own. They both are now over the age of 18 years and work in the Husband's business. The Husband is age 52 and in good health. The"}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici Date: 1998-12-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iff shall be entitled to one-half of the Defendant's NUSCO 401K plan to wit one half of $36,594.00. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to a 50% interest in and to the Defendant's Northeast Utilities Service Company Retirement Plan, the same to be achieved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall assist and or participate in securing health insurance coverage for the Plaintiff incident to his employment under Cobra for a period of three years but at the Plaintiff's cost and expense. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debt to People's Bank in the amount of $276.03 and the Sears debt of $1,327.22. The Defendant shall"}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hibit 1, statement from Mohegan Sun, for an account of the dates, hours spent at the casino and wins and losses for 1998 through November 19, 1998, amounting to losses of $51,747.00. The Defendant has a vested interest in Northeast Utilities Service Company Retirement Plan. At age 65 his monthly benefit would be $952.59. Defendant is also a member of the NUSCO 401K plan with a balance of $36,121.92. Plaintiff's total earnings in 1997 were $30,606.96 as shown in her W-2, in 1996 they were $35,355.50 and in 1996 Defendant's earnings were $73,233.34, in 1995 Plaintiff's earnings were $34,829.18 and the Defendant's $58,035.93."}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: For a considerable time during the marriage, the Plaintiff gave her weekly paycheck to the Defendant. The Plaintiff prevented the Defendant from securing a further $80,000.00 loan by refusing to sign the necessary documents. The Plaintiff has no vested pension benefits nor any 401K plan. The Defendant refused to discuss family finances with the Plaintiff. The Defendant discontinued prescribed medicine from Dr. Patterson after one month even though its purpose was to assist in the addiction of gambling. The Defendant has suffered from stresses incident to his employment, the uncertainty of his position and m"}
{"id":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a00529b8-499e-4655-8891-e13446c6cb44","slug":"aura-maria-serdici-v-alexander-j-serdici-3337519","title":"Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342006/serdici-v-serdici-no-0544882-dec-18-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342006","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-18","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e during the marriage, the Plaintiff gave her weekly paycheck to the Defendant. The Plaintiff prevented the Defendant from securing a further $80,000.00 loan by refusing to sign the necessary documents. The Plaintiff has no vested pension benefits nor any 401K plan. The Defendant refused to discuss family finances with the Plaintiff. The Defendant discontinued prescribed medicine from Dr. Patterson after one month even though its purpose was to assist in the addiction of gambling. The Defendant has suffered from stresses incident to his employment, the uncertainty of his position and mother-in-law problems."}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz Date: 1995-01-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r contempt alleging the plaintiff had failed to comply with the court order for child support and temporary alimony. The text of the motion contained an allegation that plaintiff had resigned his employment and terminated his attorney. Defendant requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring sufficient funds from plaintiff's 401K plan to cover the support order. The court signed this order after a hearing. At or about August 19, 1994, plaintiff obtained an ex parte restraining order against the defendant. Defendant applied to the court on August 29, 1994 for an order (114) requiring plaintiff to devote the rental payments from the"}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ntiff. In April 1994, defendant filed a cross complaint requesting the following relief: dissolution of the marriage; joint legal custody; child support; alimony; exclusive use of the family home; counsel fees; transfer of plaintiff's interest in a pension or retirement plan; and conveyance of plaintiff's interest in real property located at 87 Williams Street, Meriden, Connecticut. In May of 1994, the parties stipulated and the court ordered: 1. Joint legal custody, primary residence with the CT Page 445-M mother, visitation to plaintiff father. 2. Plaintiff shall pay the two mortgages on 87 Williams Street receiving cre"}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of the plaintiff. In April 1994, defendant filed a cross complaint requesting the following relief: dissolution of the marriage; joint legal custody; child support; alimony; exclusive use of the family home; counsel fees; transfer of plaintiff's interest in a pension or retirement plan; and conveyance of plaintiff's interest in real property located at 87 Williams Street, Meriden, Connecticut. In May of 1994, the parties stipulated and the court ordered: 1. Joint legal custody, primary residence with the CT Page 445-M mother, visitation to plaintiff father. 2. Plaintiff shall pay the two mortgages on 87 Williams S"}
{"id":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57843560-480d-4082-81a0-1e9789f8977c","slug":"bahij-baz-v-vera-baz-3371940","title":"Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376395/baz-v-baz-no-fa93-0244504-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ild support and temporary alimony. The text of the motion contained an allegation that plaintiff had resigned his employment and terminated his attorney. Defendant requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring sufficient funds from plaintiff's 401K plan to cover the support order. The court signed this order after a hearing. At or about August 19, 1994, plaintiff obtained an ex parte restraining order against the defendant. Defendant applied to the court on August 29, 1994 for an order (114) requiring plaintiff to devote the rental payments from the jointly owned CT Page 445-P property at 90 Williams"}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral. Date: 2002-03-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the same. The defendant shall receive a credit in the amount of $28,000, representing a one-half interest of the equity in said marital residence, to be deducted as outlined in paragraph 4 below; 4. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, less a credit of $28,000 representing one-half interest of the equity in said marital premises as described in paragraph 3, above. For purposes of determining the value of the 401K plan, the date of February 12, 2002 shall be used, as previously agreed to by the parties. The court shall retain jurisdiction over all aspects of the Qualified Domestic Relatio"}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rket value of the jointly owned marital residence is $130,000. The mortgage balance is $74,000 leaving equity of $56,000 for the parties. The defendant has a 401K plan through his employer with a value as of February 12, 2002 of $187,668.86. The plaintiff's retirement benefits are limited to social security entitlements as follows: $477 per month beginning March 8, 2004; $645 per month beginning January 8, 2008 if she waits until age 65 to collect and $873 per month beginning March 8, 2012 if she reaches age 70 before claiming benefits. The parties are at odds about a property settlement and alimony, thereby invoking the statu"}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the parties' joint tax return the amounts cannot be confirmed. The parties agree that the fair market value of the jointly owned marital residence is $130,000. The mortgage balance is $74,000 leaving equity of $56,000 for the parties. The defendant has a 401K plan through his employer with a value as of February 12, 2002 of $187,668.86. The plaintiff's retirement benefits are limited to social security entitlements as follows: $477 per month beginning March 8, 2004; $645 per month beginning January 8, 2008 if she waits until age 65 to collect and $873 per month beginning March 8, 2012 if she reaches age 70 befor"}
{"id":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467adc14-6ab3-46a4-a8a4-47c4095a5dd4","slug":"barbara-amaral-v-william-amaral-3356691","title":"Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361157/amaral-v-amaral-no-fa-00-0063037s-mar-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361157","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The defendant shall receive a credit in the amount of $28,000, representing a one-half interest of the equity in said marital residence, to be deducted as outlined in paragraph 4 below; 4. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, less a credit of $28,000 representing one-half interest of the equity in said marital premises as described in paragraph 3, above. For purposes of determining the value of the 401K plan, the date of February 12, 2002 shall be used, as previously agreed to by the parties. The court shall retain jurisdiction over all aspects of the Qualified Domestic Relatio"}
{"id":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"190a2c4c-ea27-44e4-a544-fcf46dd234ee","slug":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555","title":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350034/bedell-v-bedell-no-52-25-06-dec-21-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-21","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell Date: 1993-12-21. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"190a2c4c-ea27-44e4-a544-fcf46dd234ee","slug":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555","title":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350034/bedell-v-bedell-no-52-25-06-dec-21-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-21","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"190a2c4c-ea27-44e4-a544-fcf46dd234ee","slug":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555","title":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350034/bedell-v-bedell-no-52-25-06-dec-21-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-21","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 82 , the Court enters the following orders: (A) The marriage is dissolved. (B) The plaintiff is awarded 50 percent of the defendant's Connecticut State Police pension and 50 percent of his future military reserve pension. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with regard to both pensions, and the defendant is required to sign any and all documents and instruments necessary to effectuate this award. This Court will continue to retain jurisdiction to enforce these orders. (C) The defendant is ordered to retain and keep in force the Connecticut State Police Association life insurance policy in the amount of $100,"}
{"id":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"190a2c4c-ea27-44e4-a544-fcf46dd234ee","slug":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555","title":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350034/bedell-v-bedell-no-52-25-06-dec-21-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-21","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: kly income of $184.01. Plaintiff did not attend college and has no specialized training and has a work history which indicates an earning capacity of $10,000 to $12,000 per year. (8) The defendant is 53 years old and is a retired state policeman receiving a pension of $464.32 a week gross and a net income of $398.86. The evidence indicated that the defendant has in the past had an earning capacity of approximately $50,000 in addition to his pension. However, the defendant is presently unemployed and has tried very hard to obtain a position that would make use of his skills both in the CT Page 11147 security field and"}
{"id":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"190a2c4c-ea27-44e4-a544-fcf46dd234ee","slug":"barbara-bedell-v-robert-bedell-3345555","title":"Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350034/bedell-v-bedell-no-52-25-06-dec-21-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-21","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ourt enters the following orders: (A) The marriage is dissolved. (B) The plaintiff is awarded 50 percent of the defendant's Connecticut State Police pension and 50 percent of his future military reserve pension. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with regard to both pensions, and the defendant is required to sign any and all documents and instruments necessary to effectuate this award. This Court will continue to retain jurisdiction to enforce these orders. (C) The defendant is ordered to retain and keep in force the Connecticut State Police Association life insurance policy in the amount of $100,"}
{"id":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e7aa43d-def4-4e9b-83cc-5408b98ddf81","slug":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811","title":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375267/dimaio-v-dimaio-no-fa97-0059827s-nov-5-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-05","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio Date: 1998-11-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e7aa43d-def4-4e9b-83cc-5408b98ddf81","slug":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811","title":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375267/dimaio-v-dimaio-no-fa97-0059827s-nov-5-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-05","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e7aa43d-def4-4e9b-83cc-5408b98ddf81","slug":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811","title":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375267/dimaio-v-dimaio-no-fa97-0059827s-nov-5-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-05","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: toward her medical/dental expenses from his net proceeds of the sale of the real estate or upon transfer of the real estate title. Miscellaneous 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension plan which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to his 401(k) savings plan. 3. Each party shall be responsible for their own medical and dental expenses hereafter. The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits, if available, through the defendant's employment, at her sole expense. 4. The defendant shall be responsible for the tenant's security deposit. Chan"}
{"id":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e7aa43d-def4-4e9b-83cc-5408b98ddf81","slug":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811","title":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375267/dimaio-v-dimaio-no-fa97-0059827s-nov-5-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-05","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ir market value of $224,000. The mortgage balance is approximately $174,600. The home has a third floor apartment which is rented for $750 per month. The defendant has been collecting this rental income since the parties separated. The defendant has a small pension and a 401(k) of approximately $2,200. There are no other assets. The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that follow. Real Estate 1. The marital home located at 862 Grassy Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut, shall immediately be listed for sale with a listing price of $265,000. The partie"}
{"id":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e7aa43d-def4-4e9b-83cc-5408b98ddf81","slug":"barbara-dimaio-v-ralph-dimaio-3370811","title":"Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375267/dimaio-v-dimaio-no-fa97-0059827s-nov-5-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-05","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e of $224,000. The mortgage balance is approximately $174,600. The home has a third floor apartment which is rented for $750 per month. The defendant has been collecting this rental income since the parties separated. The defendant has a small pension and a 401(k) of approximately $2,200. There are no other assets. The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that follow. Real Estate 1. The marital home located at 862 Grassy Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut, shall immediately be listed for sale with a listing price of $265,000. The parties shall agree"}
{"id":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf664892-0d55-4469-87db-7f0c12ccc92c","slug":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659","title":"Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351137/ganns-v-ganns-no-0545195-aug-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351137","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-08-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns Date: 1999-08-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf664892-0d55-4469-87db-7f0c12ccc92c","slug":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659","title":"Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351137/ganns-v-ganns-no-0545195-aug-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351137","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-08-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf664892-0d55-4469-87db-7f0c12ccc92c","slug":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659","title":"Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351137/ganns-v-ganns-no-0545195-aug-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351137","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-08-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all her interest in the lots in Pathiump, Nevada and to the Las Vegas timeshare. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless on any CT Page 10669 claims arising from said ownership. 5. The defendant shall, by QDRO, transfer to the plaintiff 35% of his U.S. Navy pension. 6. The plaintiff shall own the 1998 Saturn automobile, the Pioneer II stocks in her name, her Citizen's bank account, her IRA, jewelry, household furnishings and the silver certificates. 7. The defendant shall own the 1997 Ford, his Navy Federal Credit Union account, the Templeton Growth Fund join"}
{"id":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf664892-0d55-4469-87db-7f0c12ccc92c","slug":"barbara-ganns-v-kevin-ganns-3346659","title":"Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351137/ganns-v-ganns-no-0545195-aug-5-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351137","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-08-05","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: laintiff can or will increase her earning capacity. The defendant, who is in the United States Navy, appears to be in good health. He entered the Navy in August 1976 and married the plaintiff on June 3, 1977. Therefore, approximately 22 years of defendant's pension accumulated during the marriage of the parties. He plans to retire June 2000. CT Page 10668 The defendant receives a gross weekly income of $947.44 and a net income of $692.74. He also receives an allowance of approximately $1,000.00 a month which will cease when their marriage is dissolved. The parties jointly own the marital home located at and known"}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi Date: 1993-11-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said bonds in trust for the benefit of the minor children, they shall equally divide the Savings Bonds currently in the husband's pos"}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ral Statutes Section 46b-84 (c) are incorporated by reference in its entirety in this decree. DIVISION OF ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said b"}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e wife to timely process her application in relation thereto. The provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-84 (c) are incorporated by reference in its entirety in this decree. DIVISION OF ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Curre"}
{"id":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f88fdebf-2e5f-48c3-bf65-359d00478ca2","slug":"barbara-j-licursi-v-eugene-a-licursi-3347713","title":"Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352190/licursi-v-licursi-no-fa-91-0307684s-nov-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352190","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): r to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said bonds in trust for the benefit of the minor children, they shall equally divide the Savings Bonds currently in the husband's possession. Life Insurance The husband shall maintain his curren"}
{"id":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2307766-1f29-4da5-9ec3-c069e0a88ed1","slug":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673","title":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330175/landock-v-landock-no-fa99-0065074s-jun-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock Date: 1999-06-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2307766-1f29-4da5-9ec3-c069e0a88ed1","slug":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673","title":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330175/landock-v-landock-no-fa99-0065074s-jun-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2307766-1f29-4da5-9ec3-c069e0a88ed1","slug":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673","title":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330175/landock-v-landock-no-fa99-0065074s-jun-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shall be the sole property of the defendant and the plaintiff shall have no claim thereto. LIFE INSURANCE The defendant shall continue to maintain the $130,000 life insurance policy as set forth on his financial affidavit, with the minor children as beneficiaries thereon, for so l"}
{"id":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2307766-1f29-4da5-9ec3-c069e0a88ed1","slug":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673","title":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330175/landock-v-landock-no-fa99-0065074s-jun-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry or have such coverage available to her through employment, whichever shall occur first. PENSION The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shall be the sole property of the defendant and the plaintiff shall have no claim thereto. LIFE"}
{"id":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2307766-1f29-4da5-9ec3-c069e0a88ed1","slug":"barbara-landock-v-christopher-landock-3325673","title":"Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330175/landock-v-landock-no-fa99-0065074s-jun-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it of the plaintiff at his sole cost and expense as is available through his employment for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry or have such coverage available to her through employment, whichever shall occur first. PENSION The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shal"}
{"id":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"645cf0eb-bb1f-4951-99cf-8931f66b95a5","slug":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610","title":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356081/mancino-v-mancino-no-fa-95-127989-apr-24-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356081","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-04-24","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino Date: 1997-04-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"645cf0eb-bb1f-4951-99cf-8931f66b95a5","slug":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610","title":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356081/mancino-v-mancino-no-fa-95-127989-apr-24-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356081","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-04-24","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"645cf0eb-bb1f-4951-99cf-8931f66b95a5","slug":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610","title":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356081/mancino-v-mancino-no-fa-95-127989-apr-24-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356081","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-04-24","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s. Likewise, the parties shall share equally in the liability for any deficiency. 3. The balance in the defendant's 401K plan as of March 31, 1997 shall be divided equally between the parties, and the plaintiff's share shall be transfered to her by way of a qualified domestic relations order or some other vehicle designed to eliminate or minimize taxes. Counsel for the plaintiff shall draft the instrument of transfer, and the defendant shall CT Page 4745 cooperate fully 4. Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain the assets shown on their respective financial affidavits without any claim by the other party. Likewise, each"}
{"id":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"645cf0eb-bb1f-4951-99cf-8931f66b95a5","slug":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610","title":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356081/mancino-v-mancino-no-fa-95-127989-apr-24-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356081","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-04-24","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): obligation on the defendant solely for the purpose of meeting the plaintiff's weekly payments on her liabilities) The parties have agreed to sell the former family home and equally share any profit or deficiency. The defendant has also agreed to divide his 401K plan equally with the plaintiff, a division which is fair and equitable given the fact that all contributions were made during the marriage. They have also agreed on the distribution of personal property, all or most of which has already been divided. The plaintiff requests and the defendant objects to a contribution to her counsel fees. Considering the r"}
{"id":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"645cf0eb-bb1f-4951-99cf-8931f66b95a5","slug":"barbara-mancino-v-john-mancino-3351610","title":"Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356081/mancino-v-mancino-no-fa-95-127989-apr-24-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356081","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-04-24","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e, the parties shall share equally in the liability for any deficiency. 3. The balance in the defendant's 401K plan as of March 31, 1997 shall be divided equally between the parties, and the plaintiff's share shall be transfered to her by way of a qualified domestic relations order or some other vehicle designed to eliminate or minimize taxes. Counsel for the plaintiff shall draft the instrument of transfer, and the defendant shall CT Page 4745 cooperate fully 4. Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain the assets shown on their respective financial affidavits without any claim by the other party. Likewise, each"}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza Date: 2000-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nearly equally as possible. If the parties are unable to agree, the matter is referred to Family Relations for mediation and recommendation. 11. The Defendant is currently vested in a pension through the City of East Haven. The parties shall, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), share equally in that portion of the pension benefit accrued during the period of their marriage. At the time of the hearing, both counsel indicated to the Court that independent counsel would be hired to prepare the necessary documentation and that insufficient information was available as of the date of the hearing regarding all of the terms of th"}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: as she commences receipt of her share in the form of an annuity. The intent of this order is to secure the Plaintiff's share of the pension should the Defendant die prior to his receipt of any lump sum benefit or the commencement of any annuity portion of his retirement benefit, and the Plaintiff not be eligible to receive her share under the terms of the plan. The balance of such insurance shall be maintained with the minor children as beneficiaries during the minority of either or both. 8. So long as he has physical custody of the minor children, CT Page 3535 the Defendant shall be entitled to claim the personal exemption for"}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rs were substantially reduced as a result of his new position, and the Court finds that evidence to be credible. He appeared to the Court to be in good health, and no testimony was offered to the contrary. He has a $50,000.00 group life insurance policy and a pension through the City of East Haven. According to the evidence presented to the Court, the Defendant resumed his participation in the pension plan during fiscal year 1985-86, and that as of the end of fiscal year 1992/1993, his vested contribution account had a balance of $18,217.58. As of the end of fiscal 1998/1999, this account stood at $40,195.97. Assuming a"}
{"id":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef9a77de-a51f-494c-b870-12aeba48a078","slug":"barbara-speranza-v-anthony-speranza-3352216","title":"Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356685/speranza-v-speranza-no-fa99-0065538s-mar-31-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ually as possible. If the parties are unable to agree, the matter is referred to Family Relations for mediation and recommendation. 11. The Defendant is currently vested in a pension through the City of East Haven. The parties shall, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), share equally in that portion of the pension benefit accrued during the period of their marriage. At the time of the hearing, both counsel indicated to the Court that independent counsel would be hired to prepare the necessary documentation and that insufficient information was available as of the date of the hearing regarding all of the terms of th"}
{"id":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae30db25-74ba-47a2-b79e-bd7ba2cc8d81","slug":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703","title":"Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent.","citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514450/jameson-v-desta/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514450","extracted_docket_number":"of commentators pointed out that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-07-05","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent. Citation: 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831. Extracted reporter citation: 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831. Docket: of commentators pointed out that the. Date: 2018-07-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae30db25-74ba-47a2-b79e-bd7ba2cc8d81","slug":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703","title":"Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent.","citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514450/jameson-v-desta/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514450","extracted_docket_number":"of commentators pointed out that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-07-05","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae30db25-74ba-47a2-b79e-bd7ba2cc8d81","slug":"barry-s-jameson-plaintiff-and-appellant-v-taddese-desta-defendant-and-respondent-4291703","title":"Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent.","citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514450/jameson-v-desta/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514450","extracted_docket_number":"of commentators pointed out that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-07-05","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: Filed 7/5/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BARRY S. JAMESON, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S230899 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D066793 TADDESE DESTA, ) ) San Diego County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. GIS9465 ____________________________________) Under California's in forma pauperis doctrine and Government Code section 68086, subdivision (b),1 a person who because of limited financial resources qualifies for a waiver of initial court filing fees is entitled, as well, to a waiver of fees for the attendance of an official court reporter at a hearing or trial. In this case, however, although plaintiff Barry Jameson (hereafter plaintiff) was entitled to a waiver of offici"}
{"id":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"566fdb38-52a9-4a38-a2b8-30bb787f1eb0","slug":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808","title":"Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D.","citation":"2023 ND 185","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9428951/bd-of-trustees-of-the-nd-public-employees-retirement-system-v-nd/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"9428951","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2023 ND 185","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2023-09-28","citation_year":2023,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. Citation: 2023 ND 185. Extracted reporter citation: 2023 ND 185. Date: 2023-09-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"566fdb38-52a9-4a38-a2b8-30bb787f1eb0","slug":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808","title":"Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D.","citation":"2023 ND 185","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9428951/bd-of-trustees-of-the-nd-public-employees-retirement-system-v-nd/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"9428951","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2023 ND 185","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2023-09-28","citation_year":2023,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"566fdb38-52a9-4a38-a2b8-30bb787f1eb0","slug":"bd-of-trustees-of-the-n-d-public-employees-retirement-system-v-n-d-9880808","title":"Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D.","citation":"2023 ND 185","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9428951/bd-of-trustees-of-the-nd-public-employees-retirement-system-v-nd/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"9428951","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2023 ND 185","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2023-09-28","citation_year":2023,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: yee and who is familiar with retirement and employee benefit plans. The governor shall appoint one citizen member to serve as chairman of the board. 4. Three board members must be elected by and from among the active participating members, members of the retirement plan established under chapter 54-52.6, members of the retirement plan 2 established under chapter 39-03.1, and members of the job service North Dakota retirement plan. Employees who have terminated their employment for whatever reason are not eligible to serve as elected members of the board under this subsection. Board members must be elected to a five"}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant Date: 1999-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tiff and/or her representatives in adjusting her mode of living residence in accordance with her health requirements. The defendant shall retain the cash value of his life insurance policy with Northwest Mutual and the court reserves jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order in order to transfer the aforementioned interests to the plaintiff of the defendant's pension. It is ordered that each of the parties shall be responsible for the debts as appear on their respective financial affidavits. Assets transferred to the plaintiff by virtue of the orders of this judgment are to be made payable to Cheri Olzacki, Conservatrix of th"}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: onies that she has and any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The defendant retain monies that he has in any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The parties have further stipulated that the marital portion of the defendant's pension plan is $47,500.00 and that the plaintiffs retirement and 401K funds total $36,585.00, this latter sum being a portion of the funds set over to her as here and before ordered. The $47,500.00 marital portion of the pension fund of the defendant is ordered divided and 50% of said amount is set over to the plaintiff in the event that she shall survive the de"}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nt accounts. The defendant retain monies that he has in any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The parties have further stipulated that the marital portion of the defendant's pension plan is $47,500.00 and that the plaintiffs retirement and 401K funds total $36,585.00, this latter sum being a portion of the funds set over to her as here and before ordered. The $47,500.00 marital portion of the pension fund of the defendant is ordered divided and 50% of said amount is set over to the plaintiff in the event that she shall survive the defendant as of the date said benefits become payable for any rea"}
{"id":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d302c18-53a4-4bc8-a739-67d1fd6790e2","slug":"bernice-g-bishop-v-david-a-grant-3328606","title":"Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333106/bishop-v-grant-no-fa98-85544-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333106","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r her representatives in adjusting her mode of living residence in accordance with her health requirements. The defendant shall retain the cash value of his life insurance policy with Northwest Mutual and the court reserves jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order in order to transfer the aforementioned interests to the plaintiff of the defendant's pension. It is ordered that each of the parties shall be responsible for the debts as appear on their respective financial affidavits. Assets transferred to the plaintiff by virtue of the orders of this judgment are to be made payable to Cheri Olzacki, Conservatrix of th"}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0697d6c-01c1-4aa4-8284-25ba30cee08a","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362881/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381s-oct-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362881","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard. Date: 2000-10-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0697d6c-01c1-4aa4-8284-25ba30cee08a","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362881/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381s-oct-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362881","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0697d6c-01c1-4aa4-8284-25ba30cee08a","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362881/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381s-oct-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362881","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e found by the judgment of the court for pendente lite alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0697d6c-01c1-4aa4-8284-25ba30cee08a","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362881/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381s-oct-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362881","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0697d6c-01c1-4aa4-8284-25ba30cee08a","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertpand-j-bouchard-3358416","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362881/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381s-oct-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362881","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the judgment of the court for pendente lite alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard Date: 2000-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eam Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut, to the plaintiff Beryl Bouchard and the plaintiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grand"}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grandchildren, for purposes of duplication and then negatives to be returned to plaintiff. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by QDRO 50% of his right, title and interest in and to any pension plan to which he is entitled to pension benefits from the Baking and Confectionery Union and Industrial International Pension Fund. The defendant shall transfer ownership to the plaintiff the Primerica life insurance policy having a face amount of $150,000.00. The plaintiff shall be named irrevocable beneficiary of the death benefit. Failure to transfer s"}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ntiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grandchildren, for purposes of duplication and then ne"}
{"id":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb01a1fc-6709-47af-ad95-334211791e87","slug":"beryl-w-bouchard-v-bertrand-j-bouchard-3367599","title":"Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372059/bouchard-v-bouchard-no-fa98-0148381-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372059","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Waterbury, Connecticut, to the plaintiff Beryl Bouchard and the plaintiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grand"}
{"id":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62a886fe-55c5-493c-8de1-43142ad45220","slug":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784","title":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375240/harwood-v-harwood-no-fa95-032-54-97-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr. Date: 1997-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62a886fe-55c5-493c-8de1-43142ad45220","slug":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784","title":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375240/harwood-v-harwood-no-fa95-032-54-97-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62a886fe-55c5-493c-8de1-43142ad45220","slug":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784","title":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375240/harwood-v-harwood-no-fa95-032-54-97-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 817.50 in some form. The plaintiff's assets equal $12,729. To provide her with a total at least approximating one half of the total assets, she would need to receive from the defendant some $10,000. The court, therefore, would order the defendant to provide a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for one half the value of his pension and in addition, the sum of $2,000 from his IRA so as to provide a reasonably close division of the assets. Having considered all of the elements in § 46b-81 and § 46b-82 and the affidavits of the parties as well as the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings and orders. 1. The p"}
{"id":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62a886fe-55c5-493c-8de1-43142ad45220","slug":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784","title":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375240/harwood-v-harwood-no-fa95-032-54-97-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s paid in food. Food, of course, also has a monetary value and should be considered as part of his income. Given these facts which suggest additional income to that CT Page 380-Q reported on his affidavit plus the fact that he failed to report that he had a pension of over $15,000 from the church on his first affidavit and was required to amend his affidavit in order to reveal this, it appears that his account of his earnings is somewhat less than trustworthy. In addition, at the time of the trial, the defendant was notified that his employment was to be terminated at the end of the month and he was to be given a mo"}
{"id":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62a886fe-55c5-493c-8de1-43142ad45220","slug":"betsy-harwood-v-john-harwood-jr-3370784","title":"Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375240/harwood-v-harwood-no-fa95-032-54-97-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: some form. The plaintiff's assets equal $12,729. To provide her with a total at least approximating one half of the total assets, she would need to receive from the defendant some $10,000. The court, therefore, would order the defendant to provide a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for one half the value of his pension and in addition, the sum of $2,000 from his IRA so as to provide a reasonably close division of the assets. Having considered all of the elements in § 46b-81 and § 46b-82 and the affidavits of the parties as well as the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings and orders. 1. The p"}
{"id":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ff8ab7c-cc58-4ca8-9e1e-cc3230543bdb","slug":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679","title":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373138/wettish-v-wettish-no-fa98-85324-feb-19-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373138","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-19","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish Date: 1999-02-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ff8ab7c-cc58-4ca8-9e1e-cc3230543bdb","slug":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679","title":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373138/wettish-v-wettish-no-fa98-85324-feb-19-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373138","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-19","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ff8ab7c-cc58-4ca8-9e1e-cc3230543bdb","slug":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679","title":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373138/wettish-v-wettish-no-fa98-85324-feb-19-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373138","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-19","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to the plaintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per week as alimony until he accomplishes the payment to her of her equity in the residence parcel. Thereafter he shall pa"}
{"id":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ff8ab7c-cc58-4ca8-9e1e-cc3230543bdb","slug":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679","title":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373138/wettish-v-wettish-no-fa98-85324-feb-19-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373138","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-19","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o-ownership of this parcel are not before the court, CT Page 2088 the court will leave it to the plaintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per we"}
{"id":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ff8ab7c-cc58-4ca8-9e1e-cc3230543bdb","slug":"betsy-wettish-v-robert-c-wettish-3368679","title":"Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373138/wettish-v-wettish-no-fa98-85324-feb-19-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373138","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-19","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per week as alimony until he accomplishes the payment to her of her equity in the residence parcel. Thereafter he shall pa"}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider. Date: 2003-03-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he defendant shall provide to the plaintiff the name, address and telephone of the plan administrator, together with the correct name of the plan, on or before April 2, 2003. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and filing and expense of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This court shall retain jurisdiction for review of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 18. The defendant is awarded the security deposit in the amount of $895 that he has paid to his current landlord. 19. Whether the parties file jointly or separately on their income taxes for the year 2002, they shall pool the amounts to be refunded to each and to"}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion. Until recently, the defendant put aside moneys from his paycheck for 401(k) contributions. As of January 8, 2003, the net 401(k) savings CT Page 3421 account balance was approximately $3,600 because of an outstanding loan balance of $6,100. The 401(k) retirement account balance is approximately $22,100. The defendant enjoys singing. In 1998, he made a compact disk and worked to promote its sales. The C.D. did not take off. The defendant worked in the kitchen at home for two years developing a hot and spicy barbecue sauce. In October 2001, he borrowed $4,000 to incorporate a business — Absolutely Necessary, LLC &#"}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tew Leonard's is planning to open a new store on Long Island in May 2004. The defendant has tentatively been offered a position there as a store manager. He expects to accept the position. Until recently, the defendant put aside moneys from his paycheck for 401(k) contributions. As of January 8, 2003, the net 401(k) savings CT Page 3421 account balance was approximately $3,600 because of an outstanding loan balance of $6,100. The 401(k) retirement account balance is approximately $22,100. The defendant enjoys singing. In 1998, he made a compact disk and worked to promote its sales. The C.D. did not take off. The"}
{"id":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8302ee1-6e61-44a2-84fc-af5c387700e8","slug":"brenda-snider-v-leroy-snider-3364254","title":"Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368714/snider-v-snider-no-fa02-0076870-mar-10-2003/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-03-10","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt shall provide to the plaintiff the name, address and telephone of the plan administrator, together with the correct name of the plan, on or before April 2, 2003. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and filing and expense of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This court shall retain jurisdiction for review of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 18. The defendant is awarded the security deposit in the amount of $895 that he has paid to his current landlord. 19. Whether the parties file jointly or separately on their income taxes for the year 2002, they shall pool the amounts to be refunded to each and to"}
{"id":"burke-v-state-899311::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdb32a43-ac3b-43c4-ba36-f4110a345dc1","slug":"burke-v-state-899311","title":"Burke v. State","citation":"2012 ND 169","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/899311/burke-v-state/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"899311","extracted_docket_number":"20110231","extracted_reporter_citation":"2012 ND 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-08-16","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Burke v. State Citation: 2012 ND 169. Extracted reporter citation: 2012 ND 169. Docket: 20110231. Date: 2012-08-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Burke v. State is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"burke-v-state-899311::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdb32a43-ac3b-43c4-ba36-f4110a345dc1","slug":"burke-v-state-899311","title":"Burke v. State","citation":"2012 ND 169","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/899311/burke-v-state/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"899311","extracted_docket_number":"20110231","extracted_reporter_citation":"2012 ND 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-08-16","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"burke-v-state-899311::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdb32a43-ac3b-43c4-ba36-f4110a345dc1","slug":"burke-v-state-899311","title":"Burke v. State","citation":"2012 ND 169","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/899311/burke-v-state/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"899311","extracted_docket_number":"20110231","extracted_reporter_citation":"2012 ND 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-08-16","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: costs. Schulte argues that without utilizing her property settlement award, she has no funds to pay her attorney's fees while Kramer has given up income from Bobcat and Swanson Apartments, has disposable income after his court-ordered obligations, and has a pension at Bobcat. Kramer seemingly concedes that the trial court made no specific findings regarding Schulte's request for attorney's fees, but argues this Court may rely upon implied findings when the record enables us to understand the factual determinations. [¶36] Here, in not awarding Schulte's attorney's fees, the trial court made no findings explaining"}
{"id":"burke-v-state-899311::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdb32a43-ac3b-43c4-ba36-f4110a345dc1","slug":"burke-v-state-899311","title":"Burke v. State","citation":"2012 ND 169","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/899311/burke-v-state/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"899311","extracted_docket_number":"20110231","extracted_reporter_citation":"2012 ND 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2012-08-16","citation_year":2012,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ded divorce judgment eliminating Kenneth Kramer's obligations to pay her spousal support, to provide health insurance, and to pay non-covered medical costs. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the award of health insurance was spousal support and not property division; we reverse, concluding the trial court clearly erred in granting Kramer's motion to eliminate his spousal support obligations; we reverse for the trial court to consider whether to grant Schulte's request for attorney's fees; and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I [¶2] Relevant facts are set forth in our prior decision"}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carkuff v. Balmer Citation: 2011 ND 60. Extracted reporter citation: 2011 ND 60. Docket: 20100237. Date: 2011-03-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Carkuff v. Balmer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mber 2009, the district court issued a decision adopting the 1994 divorce judgment, adopting Sharrie Stephenson's proposed distribution of assets and liabilities, and awarding Sharrie Stephenson $90,000 as an adjustment for her interest in Daniel Stephenson's retirement accounts. Daniel Stephenson's net award, without the value of his pensions, is approximately $175,000. Sharrie Stephenson's net award, including the $90,000 the court awarded as an adjustment for the retirement accounts, is approximately $155,000. The court also ordered Daniel Stephenson pay Sharrie Stephenson $3,000 per month in permanent spousal support and $1"}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: most of the parties' marriage but also had periods when she did not work outside the home. [¶3] At the time of their 1994 divorce, the parties agreed Sharrie Stephenson would receive twenty-five percent of Daniel Stephenson's Department of Defense (\"DOD\") pension. The parties' agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment. Daniel Stephenson began receiving benefits from his DOD pension in 1997 after he completed his military career. Daniel and Sharrie Stephenson remarried in 1997, and Sharrie Stephenson did not receive payment for the portion of the pension benefits she was awarded in the 1994 judgment."}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nsion benefits. The court awarded Sharrie Stephenson her individual retirement accounts worth approximately $11,203.44. The court awarded Daniel Stephenson his individual retirement accounts worth approximately $28,361.51, his Department of Veterans Affairs 401(k) worth $80,844.55, the DOD pension, and his Department of Veterans Affairs (\"VA\") pension. The court found \"[Daniel Stephenson's] retirement benefits totaled approximately $173,731.50.\" The court also ordered, \"Daniel shall make payment to Sharrie as an adjustment for Sharrie's interest in Daniel's retirement accounts, that in the amount of $90,000, to be"}
{"id":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ae4fd-253e-4b43-a731-7f84a5ec96eb","slug":"carkuff-v-balmer-898954","title":"Carkuff v. Balmer","citation":"2011 ND 60","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898954/carkuff-v-balmer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898954","extracted_docket_number":"20100237","extracted_reporter_citation":"2011 ND 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-03-22","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: eceives $4,417 per month from his DOD pension and his benefits increase each year for the cost of living. He testified he started receiving monthly benefits from this pension in 1997, he will continue to receive monthly payments until he dies, and there is a survivor benefit that will go to Sharrie Stephenson after he dies which would provide her with $2,400 per month until her death. Daniel Stephenson also testified he will receive approximately $905 per month from his VA pension when he retires. There was evidence the other individual retirement accounts and 401(k) account the court awarded to Daniel Stephenson are worth ap"}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol Date: 1999-06-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The lower court, in its judgment entry issued February 24, 1998, ordered, inter alia: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirem"}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The lower court, in its judgment entry issued February 24, 1998, ordered, inter alia: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Reti"}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: REED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirement Plan and Severance Pay Plan in conformity with this Judgment Entry. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate this order. Since neither appe"}
{"id":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fcbb5c5-f248-444b-b1dd-7e605b9f00bb","slug":"carol-ann-kofol-v-august-kofol-3767551","title":"Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4012429/kofol-v-kofol-unpublished-decision-6-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4012429","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirement Plan and Severance Pay Plan in conformity with this Judgment Entry. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate this order. Since neither appellant nor appellee ha"}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick Date: 1996-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: balance shall be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision and, at the defendant's election, this payment may be made in readily liquid funds or by the transfer to the plaintiff of that amount of his retirement account(s) by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court will retain jurisdiction of this matter until the lump sum property settlement is fully effectuated. E. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all of her right, title and interest in the North Carolina condominium upon receipt of the full property settlement amount as stated above. F. Except as provided in this decision, all other asse"}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ter thirty-three (33) years with the company. At the time of the marriage, the husband's assets consisted of approximately $1000 in checking; $1000 in savings; $12,000 in municipal bonds; equity of $106,000 in his home; $80,000 in Union Carbide savings and/or retirement accounts; life insurance cash value of $22,000; an automobile valued at $6000; and his interest in the Union Carbide pension. The wife's assets at the time of the marriage consisted of CT Page 620 equity in her home of approximately $100,000 to $110,000; a Volkswagen van; bank account(s) worth something less than $2000; and a possible interest in a pension/retire"}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: in checking; $1000 in savings; $12,000 in municipal bonds; equity of $106,000 in his home; $80,000 in Union Carbide savings and/or retirement accounts; life insurance cash value of $22,000; an automobile valued at $6000; and his interest in the Union Carbide pension. The wife's assets at the time of the marriage consisted of CT Page 620 equity in her home of approximately $100,000 to $110,000; a Volkswagen van; bank account(s) worth something less than $2000; and a possible interest in a pension/retirement plan at her then place of employment, where she had worked for five years before the marriage. Any claims that t"}
{"id":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c64cc0e-78e5-47b1-bd6c-770ce85e50ba","slug":"carol-e-gulick-v-rodwin-e-gulick-3353015","title":"Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357484/gulick-v-gulick-no-31-72-21-jan-25-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357484","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-25","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision and, at the defendant's election, this payment may be made in readily liquid funds or by the transfer to the plaintiff of that amount of his retirement account(s) by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court will retain jurisdiction of this matter until the lump sum property settlement is fully effectuated. E. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all of her right, title and interest in the North Carolina condominium upon receipt of the full property settlement amount as stated above. F. Except as provided in this decision, all other asse"}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls Date: 1994-09-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: endant has an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the stated assumptions are incorrect. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) twenty five (25%) percent of his retirement plan, valued as of the date of this decree. Said payment shall be made directly"}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e policy for her benefit under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) for the statutory period at the plaintiff's sole expense. (4) The defendant is awarded his trailer, boat and motorcycle. (5) The defendant has an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the"}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plan, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or state law relating to retirement/pension plans. CT Page 9270 If the plan permits, the QDRO shall provide for a surviving spouse annuity, and an order prohibiting the defendant from withdrawing his contributions. (6) The parties shall divide the furniture and furnishings in the marital residence by agreement. If they are unable to agree, they shall consult the Family Services Unit for assistanc"}
{"id":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db11d3c4-ef34-41c0-940b-ee87f8539579","slug":"carol-s-sauls-v-samuel-sauls-3365222","title":"Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369682/sauls-v-sauls-no-fa93-0133877-s-sep-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369682","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-09-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the stated assumptions are incorrect. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) twenty five (25%) percent of his retirement plan, valued as of the date of this decree. Said payment shall be made directly"}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett. Date: 2002-05-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 days of the date of this dissolution. STOCKS, BANK ACCOUNTS, IRA'S AND PENSIONS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over these accounts until they CT Page 6939 are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disp"}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): finds that his credibility is questionable. For many years before and after the marriage, the Wife was working in retail sales. The parties agreed after the birth of their first child that the Wife would stay at home with the child. The Wife cashed out her 401K with her employer in the approximate amount of $28,000.00. Over the course of the marriage the parties used those funds to help support the family. The Husband has been using the joint funds in the Ridgefield Bank accounts to wine and dine his girlfriend and has used those funds to purchase gifts for the girl friend. The girl friend has made purchases on be"}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the date of this dissolution. STOCKS, BANK ACCOUNTS, IRA'S AND PENSIONS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over these accounts until they CT Page 6939 are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disp"}
{"id":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb0ca858-b22e-43fe-8a62-c48c26c1fd19","slug":"carolyn-e-barrett-v-william-d-barrett-3328310","title":"Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332810/barrett-v-barrett-no-fa-00-0340416-may-31-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332810","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-31","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: urt.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The parties were married on June 18, 1988 in Danbury, Connecticut. By complaint dated September 11, 2000, the Wife instituted this action claiming a legal separation, sole custody of the minor children, child support, alimony, an equitable distribution of the marital assets and other relief as law and equity might provide. On April 18, 2002 the Husband filed a Cross Claim claiming a dissolution of the marriage, distribution of the marital assets, joint custody of the minor children and other relief as law and equity might provide. Two minor children were born issue of this marriage: Katie A. Barren, bor"}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder. Date: 2000-05-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: randum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewith clarified and the memorandum of decision is amended. Austin, J."}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: with regard to matters pertaining to life insurance. As is reflected in the memorandum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewi"}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reflected on his financial affidavit, has no cash value. The court did not intend to enter any orders with regard to matters pertaining to life insurance. As is reflected in the memorandum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor ann"}
{"id":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"449f5d86-8fba-4c59-9cec-251414c7af64","slug":"carolyn-j-ryder-v-kenyon-j-ryder-3356767","title":"Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361233/ryder-v-ryder-no-0548689-may-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361233","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewith clarified and the memorandum of decision is amended. Austin, J."}
{"id":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23171110-f0a7-4bcb-95b4-1a3a46a53395","slug":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078","title":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339568/betancourt-v-betancourt-no-110750-feb-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339568","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-02-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt Date: 1994-02-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23171110-f0a7-4bcb-95b4-1a3a46a53395","slug":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078","title":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339568/betancourt-v-betancourt-no-110750-feb-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339568","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-02-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23171110-f0a7-4bcb-95b4-1a3a46a53395","slug":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078","title":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339568/betancourt-v-betancourt-no-110750-feb-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339568","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-02-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ary beneficiary for $5,000.00 of the death benefit payable via his group life insurance coverage and shall maintain same for so long as he continues to be liable for periodic alimony. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to prepare the judgment and the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for which the plaintiff's attorney shall be allowed $500, payable by the defendant on or before July 1, 1994. /s/ Harrigan, J. ___________________ HARRIGAN"}
{"id":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23171110-f0a7-4bcb-95b4-1a3a46a53395","slug":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078","title":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339568/betancourt-v-betancourt-no-110750-feb-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339568","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-02-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r in 1990 over defendant's involvement with another woman. The final separation occurred in early 1992. The defendant's health is good except for a back condition which developed in 1991, but which has not prevented his working. The defendant has a deferred pension of $144.60 monthly, payable at age 65, but which can commence as early as 55, but reduced 5% for each year prior to 65, which he acquired while employed by Duracell. He is presently employed by Anamet, Inc., where he has medical coverage, dental coverage, life insurance, and an accidental death policy, as well as a pension plan funded by the employer with a"}
{"id":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23171110-f0a7-4bcb-95b4-1a3a46a53395","slug":"catalina-betancourt-v-david-c-betancourt-3335078","title":"Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339568/betancourt-v-betancourt-no-110750-feb-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339568","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-02-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ciary for $5,000.00 of the death benefit payable via his group life insurance coverage and shall maintain same for so long as he continues to be liable for periodic alimony. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to prepare the judgment and the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for which the plaintiff's attorney shall be allowed $500, payable by the defendant on or before July 1, 1994. /s/ Harrigan, J. ___________________ HARRIGAN"}
{"id":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ad60ff0-3a34-423a-b74e-dd15b8b9d671","slug":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266","title":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350744/perina-v-perina-no-fa94-0534126-apr-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina Date: 1996-04-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ad60ff0-3a34-423a-b74e-dd15b8b9d671","slug":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266","title":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350744/perina-v-perina-no-fa94-0534126-apr-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ad60ff0-3a34-423a-b74e-dd15b8b9d671","slug":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266","title":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350744/perina-v-perina-no-fa94-0534126-apr-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r week towards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such order. The defendant's pension resulting from his military service was primarily earned through pre-marital military service. Defendant will retain his entire interest in his military pension. CT Page 3668 Defendant will quitclaim his int"}
{"id":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ad60ff0-3a34-423a-b74e-dd15b8b9d671","slug":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266","title":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350744/perina-v-perina-no-fa94-0534126-apr-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arty or the plaintiff's remarriage. The alimony is otherwise non-modifiable as to its term. The court finds as arrearage due on pendente-lite alimony in the amount of $5,400. Defendant is ordered to pay $20 per week towards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such orde"}
{"id":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ad60ff0-3a34-423a-b74e-dd15b8b9d671","slug":"catherine-g-perina-v-martin-l-perina-3346266","title":"Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350744/perina-v-perina-no-fa94-0534126-apr-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such order. The defendant's pension resulting from his military service was primarily earned through pre-marital military service. Defendant will retain his entire interest in his military pension. CT Page 3668 Defendant will quitclaim his int"}
{"id":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"867282c8-990b-4770-be2c-c336cf131fbc","slug":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377","title":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329879/duthrie-v-duthrie-no-0112973-nov-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie Date: 1998-11-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"867282c8-990b-4770-be2c-c336cf131fbc","slug":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377","title":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329879/duthrie-v-duthrie-no-0112973-nov-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"867282c8-990b-4770-be2c-c336cf131fbc","slug":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377","title":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329879/duthrie-v-duthrie-no-0112973-nov-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: efendant shall retain his State of Connecticut Pension Plan. CT Page 13032 The Plaintiff shall receive all of the Defendant's IRA Paine Webber account shown on Defendant's financial affidavit and one-half of the Deferred Comp. Phoenix Account by rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall maintain Cobra health insurance benefits for the benefit of the Plaintiff through his employment with the State for a period of three years or her earlier remarriage or death. The Defendant shall retain his 1996 Chevrolet automobile and hold the Plaintiff harmless as concerns any lien or loan thereon. The Plaintiff shall retain he"}
{"id":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"867282c8-990b-4770-be2c-c336cf131fbc","slug":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377","title":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329879/duthrie-v-duthrie-no-0112973-nov-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Having gone through bankruptcy, the Defendant has only several nominal debts of approximately $3,663.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Defendant's financial affidavit reflects firearms valued at $4,800.00, a Paine Webber IRA valued at $2,981.00 and invested pension benefits of $4,070.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. The Plaintiff has debts amounting to $2,200.00 incurred since bankruptcy and her only asset is her 1994 Toyota with an equity of $7,400.00, see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. CT Page 13029 According to the health form, the Plaintiff's education extended through two years of college. The Defendant's education e"}
{"id":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"867282c8-990b-4770-be2c-c336cf131fbc","slug":"catherine-m-duthrie-v-jeffrey-a-duthrie-3325377","title":"Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329879/duthrie-v-duthrie-no-0112973-nov-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hall retain his State of Connecticut Pension Plan. CT Page 13032 The Plaintiff shall receive all of the Defendant's IRA Paine Webber account shown on Defendant's financial affidavit and one-half of the Deferred Comp. Phoenix Account by rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall maintain Cobra health insurance benefits for the benefit of the Plaintiff through his employment with the State for a period of three years or her earlier remarriage or death. The Defendant shall retain his 1996 Chevrolet automobile and hold the Plaintiff harmless as concerns any lien or loan thereon. The Plaintiff shall retain he"}
{"id":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec0995b0-bbb0-479c-a679-890445ef98ab","slug":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244","title":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332744/langevin-v-langevin-no-fa-95-0067048-dec-20-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin Date: 1995-12-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec0995b0-bbb0-479c-a679-890445ef98ab","slug":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244","title":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332744/langevin-v-langevin-no-fa-95-0067048-dec-20-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec0995b0-bbb0-479c-a679-890445ef98ab","slug":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244","title":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332744/langevin-v-langevin-no-fa-95-0067048-dec-20-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ebt int he approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant and he shall further hold the plaintiff harmless thereon. 9. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff 50% of his retirement from the United States Air Force. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other appropriate order shall be prepared and submitted to the court in order to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. The court shall retain jurisdiction over said QDRO. The defendant shall agree to execute any and all documentation necessary in order to effectuate said transfer. 10. Any settlement from plaintiff's personal injury case shall be her"}
{"id":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec0995b0-bbb0-479c-a679-890445ef98ab","slug":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244","title":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332744/langevin-v-langevin-no-fa-95-0067048-dec-20-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): y hold in their names solely. The defendant shall name the plaintiff beneficiary on a life insurance policy in the face amount of $100,000.00 so long as he is obligated to pay alimony to the plaintiff. 7. The defendant shall retain the value of his existing 401k with the Robert E. Morris Co. in the approximately amount of $3,224.00 and his IRA with Shawmut Bank in the approximately amount of $5,922.00. 8. The parties shall each remain responsible for those debts listed on their respective financial affidavits. The Sears Home Improvement debt int he approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibilit"}
{"id":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec0995b0-bbb0-479c-a679-890445ef98ab","slug":"cecelia-m-langevin-v-paul-a-langevin-3328244","title":"Cecelia M. Langevin v. Paul A. Langevin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332744/langevin-v-langevin-no-fa-95-0067048-dec-20-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332744","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: approximately amount of $5,102.00 shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant and he shall further hold the plaintiff harmless thereon. 9. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff 50% of his retirement from the United States Air Force. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other appropriate order shall be prepared and submitted to the court in order to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. The court shall retain jurisdiction over said QDRO. The defendant shall agree to execute any and all documentation necessary in order to effectuate said transfer. 10. Any settlement from plaintiff's personal injury case shall be her"}
{"id":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"995caa5a-442a-43ee-b2c3-712f1629b908","slug":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147","title":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354621/smikle-v-smikle-no-fa89-0102805-s-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle Date: 1991-04-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"995caa5a-442a-43ee-b2c3-712f1629b908","slug":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147","title":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354621/smikle-v-smikle-no-fa89-0102805-s-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"995caa5a-442a-43ee-b2c3-712f1629b908","slug":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147","title":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354621/smikle-v-smikle-no-fa89-0102805-s-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: isions of 46b-84 (c) are entered as an order. Alimony The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $50 per week until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the"}
{"id":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"995caa5a-442a-43ee-b2c3-712f1629b908","slug":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147","title":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354621/smikle-v-smikle-no-fa89-0102805-s-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the plaintiff's entitlement to COBRA medical coverage through the defendant's employment, which coverage shal"}
{"id":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"995caa5a-442a-43ee-b2c3-712f1629b908","slug":"charlene-smikle-v-gaston-smikle-3350147","title":"Charlene Smikle v. Gaston Smikle","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354621/smikle-v-smikle-no-fa89-0102805-s-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 46b-84 (c) are entered as an order. Alimony The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $50 per week until such time as the plaintiff shall die, remarry or eight years from the date hereof, whichever event shall first occur. Qualified Domestic Relations Order The plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-third interest in the present value of the defendant's pension plan at Gannett Westchester Newspapers. A Qualified Domestic Relations order shall issue to effectuate this order and the court shall have continuing jurisdiction. Medical Coverage The defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff so as to secure the"}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman. Date: 2001-10-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n the nature of support, and shall not be dischargable in bankruptcy. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J."}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the court finds that they interfere with her ability to work at the present and will in the future. When the husband unilaterally terminated medical insurance coverage for the wife and children after becoming unemployed she obtained her own, but has never had retirement benefits. The principal cause for the dissolution of the marriage was the husband's frequent absences, first to pursue his own avocational and recreational interests and later because he took jobs that were far away. An additional cause was his preoccupation with pornographic materials, which was offensive to the wife and not carefully guarded by him from the chi"}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): y. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J."}
{"id":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1d26ef4-7f34-4de7-8680-408447beea8c","slug":"cheryl-freedman-v-marc-freedman-3349746","title":"Cheryl Freedman v. Marc Freedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354220/freedman-v-freedman-no-fa-99-0447352-s-oct-19-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354220","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-19","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: re of support, and shall not be dischargable in bankruptcy. 8. The husband shall have the 1990 Honda. The wife shall have the 1993 Toyota. Each shall sign necessary documentation to effect this order. 9. The husband shall transfer to the wife by Qualified Domestic Relations Order at his expense his Smith Barney 401k within thirty days. Judgment shall enter accordingly. BY THE COURT GRUENDEL, J."}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda Date: 1997-07-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: money market account. The balance of that account is awarded to the defendant. 9. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of his IRA that was converted from his Acme United Profit Sharing Plan or $11,310, whichever sum is greater, by QDRO. 10. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's retirement plan from Acme United Corporation. The defendant is ordered to elect a joint and survivor option under that plan naming the plaintiff as survivor. The transfer is to be by QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the language of the QD"}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: $181 in his People's Bank checking account. He has a 1994 Toyota Camry with a fair market value of $12,000, a loan balance of $10,862, and an equity of $1138. He has $22,620 in an IRA that was converted from his Acme United Profit Sharing Plan. He also has a retirement plan for employees of Acme that will pay $8791 per year under a 100 percent joint survivorship election. The account that was originally opened up in the amount of $56,861, shown on plaintiff's exhibit eleven, had transferred from it $10,000 that is shown on plaintiff's exhibit twelve. On September 23, 1996, the parties entered into a written agreement for e"}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nder that plan naming the plaintiff as survivor. The transfer is to be by QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the language of the QDROs ordered herein. The one-half awarded to the plaintiff is based on the value of the defendant's pension plan as of the date he commences to receive pension benefits. 11. The 1997 Honda shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, having a value of $17,000 and a loan balance of $14,000 and an equity of $3000, is ordered transferred solely in the name of the plaintiff. CT Page 7602 12. The People's Bank account shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavi"}
{"id":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0112685f-f347-45b1-8843-593a6bfde17c","slug":"cheryl-wall-bajda-v-stephen-t-bajda-3368361","title":"Cheryl Wall Bajda v. Stephen T. Bajda","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372821/bajda-v-bajda-no-32-16-85-jul-2-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-07-02","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: oth parents having reasonable, liberal and flexible rights of visitation with the child. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody and joint custody and visitation, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enter"}
{"id":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b68d3b-e181-4b85-853a-cbef814bcce1","slug":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858","title":"Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344343/rusinik-v-rusinik-no-fa92-04-14-53-jan-25-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344343","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-25","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik Date: 1994-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b68d3b-e181-4b85-853a-cbef814bcce1","slug":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858","title":"Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344343/rusinik-v-rusinik-no-fa92-04-14-53-jan-25-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344343","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-25","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b68d3b-e181-4b85-853a-cbef814bcce1","slug":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858","title":"Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344343/rusinik-v-rusinik-no-fa92-04-14-53-jan-25-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344343","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-25","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ue of the marital home from the date of the marriage to the present time and the value of the motor vehicle and motorcycle. H. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a 30% interest in the present day value of the defendant's present pension plan. A QDRO shall be prepared by the plaintiff to effectuate this award. I. Life insurance CT Page 539 1. The defendant shall name the plaintiff and the minor child as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policies for so long as the defendant has an obligation for support and/or alimony. This provision snail be modifiable. J. Counsel Fees 1."}
{"id":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b68d3b-e181-4b85-853a-cbef814bcce1","slug":"christina-rusinik-v-joseph-v-rusinik-3339858","title":"Christina Rusinik v. Joseph v. Rusinik","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344343/rusinik-v-rusinik-no-fa92-04-14-53-jan-25-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344343","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-25","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: months of date and the balance six months thereafter. 2. In arriving at this amount, the court has considered the increase in value of the marital home from the date of the marriage to the present time and the value of the motor vehicle and motorcycle. H. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a 30% interest in the present day value of the defendant's present pension plan. A QDRO shall be prepared by the plaintiff to effectuate this award. I. Life insurance CT Page 539 1. The defendant shall name the plaintiff and the minor child as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policies for s"}
{"id":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de15b3cb-43e0-4678-97c0-c9c37c2b501a","slug":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173","title":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343659/sullivan-v-sullivan-no-0115210-sep-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343659","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan Date: 1999-09-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de15b3cb-43e0-4678-97c0-c9c37c2b501a","slug":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173","title":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343659/sullivan-v-sullivan-no-0115210-sep-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343659","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de15b3cb-43e0-4678-97c0-c9c37c2b501a","slug":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173","title":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343659/sullivan-v-sullivan-no-0115210-sep-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343659","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: male, whichever is the first to occur. 6. The plaintiff shall name the defendant as beneficiary on his $100,000.00 SGLI life insurance for as long as he has an alimony obligation to the defendant. 7. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of QDRO, or equivalent method, 50% of the present value of plaintiff's Navy pension, namely $296 per week, and shall also provide the defendant with a survivor benefit package relative to said pension. 8. The plaintiff shall pay all the parties' joint debts without any contribution from the defendant. 9. Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Vasingt"}
{"id":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de15b3cb-43e0-4678-97c0-c9c37c2b501a","slug":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173","title":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343659/sullivan-v-sullivan-no-0115210-sep-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343659","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: age has broken down irretrievably. I find the plaintiff more at fault for the breakdown than the defendant. The plaintiff, who was born March 12, 1956, appears to be in good health. He is presently a Commander in the United States Navy. He has a vested Navy pension and would receive $592.00 per week if he retired now. However, his pension benefits will increase as he continues his service in the Navy. Presently plaintiff receives an annual base pay of $61,464.00 plus $12,000.00 allowance, $1,800.00 assistance and submarine pay of $7,140.00 per year for a total yearly income of $82,332.00. In addition, he recently re"}
{"id":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de15b3cb-43e0-4678-97c0-c9c37c2b501a","slug":"christopher-j-sullivan-v-susan-b-sullivan-3339173","title":"Christopher J. Sullivan v. Susan B. Sullivan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343659/sullivan-v-sullivan-no-0115210-sep-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343659","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: as he has an alimony obligation to the defendant. 7. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of QDRO, or equivalent method, 50% of the present value of plaintiff's Navy pension, namely $296 per week, and shall also provide the defendant with a survivor benefit package relative to said pension. 8. The plaintiff shall pay all the parties' joint debts without any contribution from the defendant. 9. Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Vasington, JTR CT Page 13193"}
{"id":"cody-v-cody-4376642::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa46da18-e018-4e20-bfd0-9aeb4e3216f3","slug":"cody-v-cody-4376642","title":"Cody v. Cody","citation":"2019 ND 14","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4599389/cody-v-cody/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4599389","extracted_docket_number":"20180120","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 ND 14","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-01-15","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Cody v. Cody Citation: 2019 ND 14. Extracted reporter citation: 2019 ND 14. Docket: 20180120. Date: 2019-01-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Cody v. Cody is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"cody-v-cody-4376642::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa46da18-e018-4e20-bfd0-9aeb4e3216f3","slug":"cody-v-cody-4376642","title":"Cody v. Cody","citation":"2019 ND 14","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4599389/cody-v-cody/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4599389","extracted_docket_number":"20180120","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 ND 14","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-01-15","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"cody-v-cody-4376642::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa46da18-e018-4e20-bfd0-9aeb4e3216f3","slug":"cody-v-cody-4376642","title":"Cody v. Cody","citation":"2019 ND 14","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4599389/cody-v-cody/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4599389","extracted_docket_number":"20180120","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 ND 14","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-01-15","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: erving jurisdiction on Beverly Cody's request for a spousal support award. On January 19, 2018, Beverly Cody served and filed a request for clarification of the memorandum opinion, asking the court to clarify its order regarding the distribution of Lee Cody's pension. On February 1, 2018, the court granted the request. On February 7, 2018, the court entered an order for judgment, incorporating its January 11 opinion and clarifying that the court directed a division of the pension benefit consistent with the Bullock formula, which resulted in a division of the pension benefits earned during the marriage equally between t"}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K. Citation: 2019 Pa. Super. 251. Extracted reporter citation: 2019 Pa. Super. 251. Docket: 856 MDA 2018 CONNER. Date: 2019-08-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 3/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and's first and second issues concern his Judicial Income, which implicate the interplay of federal and state law. In his first issue, Husband asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that the annuity he receives upon satisfying the Rule of 80 is a retirement benefit subject to equitable distribution. Section 371 of the United States Code reads, in relevant part: § 371. Retirement on salary; retirement in senior status (a) Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold office during good behavior may retire from the office after attaining the age and meeting the service requirements, whether conti"}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ired in 2017. While at Dickinson Law School, Wife held various positions, including Director of Public Interest Programs and Faculty Supervisor for Externship Placement. At the time of the equitable distribution hearing, Wife was unemployed but receiving a pension through her Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System (SERS). On April 2, 2015, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. On November 10, 2016, Husband filed a petition for bifurcation, seeking to separate the divorce action from ancillary economic claims. Wife filed an answer to Husband's petition and a separate petition raising economic claims on N"}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: l pension and Husband's Judicial Income. Husband argues: In direct contrast with a defined benefit plan, [Husband's Judicial Income] does not have a [s]ummary [p]lan [d]escription; [Husband] is not considered a participant in a plan; does not provide for alternate payee status; provides no options upon retirement such as a single life annuity; and, has no vesting schedule. [Husband's Judicial Income] payment to federal judges is the same as their salary; whereas the monthly benefit under a defined benefit plan is calculated based on the participant's most recent average salary but is less than the salary (and could be"}
{"id":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2752fa8-bf6d-474f-9894-15d11fc74902","slug":"conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k-4426988","title":"Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.","citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4649735/conner-c-v-holtzinger-conner-k/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4649735","extracted_docket_number":"856 MDA 2018 CONNER","extracted_reporter_citation":"2019 Pa. Super. 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-08-20","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: the Rule of 80,1 is entitled to receive \"an annuity equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired.\" 28 U.S.C.A. § 371 (Judicial Income). Moreover, Husband can elect to participate in a judicial survivors' annuity system (JSAS), \"a voluntary survivor benefit plan that provides annuities to the survivors of certain Article III judges.\" Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/18, at 2; ____________________________________________ 1The Rule of 80 refers to the age and service requirements for retirement under Section 371. Specifically, a justice or judge is eligible for a salary annuity once the sum of their age and years of"}
{"id":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5164c448-cbc5-4d42-8b2d-107cb3e0fa2d","slug":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and","title":"Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2682037/conservatorship-of-mcqueen/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2682037","extracted_docket_number":"S209376 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2014-07-07","citation_year":2014,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant Citation: 59 Cal. 4th 602. Extracted reporter citation: 59 Cal. 4th 602. Docket: S209376 Date. Date: 2014-07-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5164c448-cbc5-4d42-8b2d-107cb3e0fa2d","slug":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and","title":"Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2682037/conservatorship-of-mcqueen/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2682037","extracted_docket_number":"S209376 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2014-07-07","citation_year":2014,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5164c448-cbc5-4d42-8b2d-107cb3e0fa2d","slug":"conservatorship-of-the-estate-of-ida-mcqueen-fessha-taye-as-conservator-etc-plaintiff-and","title":"Conservatorship of the Estate of IDA McQUEEN. FESSHA TAYE, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VERES REED, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2682037/conservatorship-of-mcqueen/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2682037","extracted_docket_number":"S209376 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"59 Cal. 4th 602","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2014-07-07","citation_year":2014,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: statute or parties‘ agreement — are available for services at trial and on appeal.‖ In Morcos v. Board of Retirement, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 927 (Morcos), holding Government Code section 31536 (fees for successful action to reverse administrative denial of retirement benefits) authorizes attorney fees for defending the superior court judgment on appeal, we relied on ―settled case law which has established the general principle that statutes authorizing attorney fee awards in lower tribunals include attorney fees incurred on appeals of decisions from those lower tribunals.‖ Neither decision relies on the Enforcement of Judgments"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10000340 Extracted case name: In re the Matter of Jaime Dion Wright and Bradley Eugene Wright. Extracted reporter citation: 811 F.2d 1249. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10000340 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: jurisdiction to do so after the federal court rules. 1 (Id.) The Pinnacle West Defendants stated—both in their Response to Ms. Dion's Motion 2 and at oral argument—that the company intends to comply with any judgment to divide 3 the Plan assets, whether a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") from Maricopa 4 County Superior Court or an order from this Court. (See Doc. 62 at 2.) 5 The Court notes that Ms. Dion filed this case on March 15, 2021, only four months 6 before Maricopa County Superior Court issued the Dissolution Decree. (Doc. 1.) Ms. 7 Dion's counsel stated at oral argument that the federal case was necessary because the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: g before the Court is Plaintiff Jaime Dion's Motion for Summary Judgment 16 (\"Motion\"). (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff also filed a Statement of Facts in Support of her Motion. 17 (Doc. 58.) Defendants Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Supplemental Excess Benefit 18 Retirement Plan, Pinnacle West Administrative Committee, and Pinnacle West Capital 19 Corporation (collectively the \"Pinnacle West Defendants\") filed a Response in which they 20 took no position on Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. 62.) Defendant Bradley Wright filed a 21 Response to Plaintiff's Motion, (Doc. 66), and filed a Controverting Statement of Facts in 22 support of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: argues that it would be an error for this 16 Court to decline jurisdiction. (Doc. 71 at 11.) Mr. Wright argues that this case is 17 unnecessary and that the issue should be handled by the state court. (Doc. 66 at 1, 9.) 18 \"Congress has expressly provided ERISA beneficiaries with the choice between a 19 state or federal forum in their actions to recover benefits.\" Transamerica Occidental Life 20 Ins. Co. v. DiGregorio, 811 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has long 21 held that \"a district judge has discretion to decline jurisdiction in favor of pending state 22 court litigation when a party s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"849fbae6-406e-42bd-b7d0-e3627acbc130","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10000340-10000340","title":"CourtListener opinion 10000340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"811 F.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion to do so after the federal court rules. 1 (Id.) The Pinnacle West Defendants stated—both in their Response to Ms. Dion's Motion 2 and at oral argument—that the company intends to comply with any judgment to divide 3 the Plan assets, whether a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") from Maricopa 4 County Superior Court or an order from this Court. (See Doc. 62 at 2.) 5 The Court notes that Ms. Dion filed this case on March 15, 2021, only four months 6 before Maricopa County Superior Court issued the Dissolution Decree. (Doc. 1.) Ms. 7 Dion's counsel stated at oral argument that the federal case was necessary because the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85662449-45c8-4bba-955d-881620011236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059","title":"CourtListener opinion 10038059","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10038059 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10038059 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85662449-45c8-4bba-955d-881620011236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059","title":"CourtListener opinion 10038059","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85662449-45c8-4bba-955d-881620011236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10038059-10038059","title":"CourtListener opinion 10038059","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a opposes reconsideration. (See Opp'n to Mot., ECF No. 73.) Neither 2 Tera nor Alec opposed summary judgment or this Motion. 3 III. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 4 Michele requests the Court take judicial notice of a dissolution judgment and a 5 stipulated domestic relations order issued in her state court divorce proceedings with 6 Decedent. (Michele's Req. Judicial Notice (\"RJN\"), ECF No. 71.) The Court may take 7 judicial notice of proceedings in other courts \"if those proceedings have a direct relation 8 to matters at issue.\" United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) 9 (quoting United States ex rel. Robinson"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10069466 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 1011. Docket: 360. Noting a legal issue percolating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10069466 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Settlement Administrator will calculate and 1 Former Participant. Settlement Agreement ¶ 6.8.2(a). Further, the Settlement Administrator will 2 advise the Former Participant: first, that the settlement payment is rollover eligible; and second, 3 that if a Qualified Domestic Relations Order applies to the payment, they are responsible for 4 complying with such Order. Id. ¶¶ 6.8.2(b)-(c). Similarly, the Settlement Administrator will issue 5 checks to any Current Participants who have a greater than zero-dollar ($0) account balance as of 6 the date settlement payments are made (e.g., Current Participants who close their Plan account 7 before"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: letter briefing before Magistrate Judge Westmore. See Dkt. 27 No 482 (or \"Mot.\") at 2-3. 1 Class, consisted of only current and former participants in the BlackRock Plan. Id. The other 2 class, the putative CTI Class, consisted of participants in numerous retirement plans whose 3 retirement savings were invested in certain BlackRock collective trust investment vehicles that 4 engaged in securities lending. Id. On February 11, 2020, the Court certified the BlackRock Plan 5 Class but denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify the CTI Class. Dkt. No. 360. Plaintiffs sought but 6 were denied a Rule 23(f) appeal of the Court's den"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Settlement Agreement, 27 unless brought against the Independent Fiduciary alone. 1 a. Any rights or duties arising out of the Settlement Agreement, including the 2 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; 3 b. Claims of individual denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 4 1132(a)(1)(B) that do not fall within sections (a)-(e) above; 5 c. Wages, labor, or employment claims unrelated to the Plan; 6 d. Any claims which were or may be asserted on behalf of the non-certified CTI Class 7 other than the claims belonging to the BlackRock Plan Class; or 8 e. Claims arising exclusively from conduct a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a69cd4e-1aad-4228-ba6a-f8224488f0ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10069466-10069466","title":"CourtListener opinion 10069466","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"360. Noting a legal issue percolating","extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 1011","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t Administrator will calculate and 1 Former Participant. Settlement Agreement ¶ 6.8.2(a). Further, the Settlement Administrator will 2 advise the Former Participant: first, that the settlement payment is rollover eligible; and second, 3 that if a Qualified Domestic Relations Order applies to the payment, they are responsible for 4 complying with such Order. Id. ¶¶ 6.8.2(b)-(c). Similarly, the Settlement Administrator will issue 5 checks to any Current Participants who have a greater than zero-dollar ($0) account balance as of 6 the date settlement payments are made (e.g., Current Participants who close their Plan account 7 before"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10074239 Extracted reporter citation: 342 F.3d 903. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10074239 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aims, Hartford filed the instant Complaint in Interpleader 11 in August 2021. Both Defendants filed answers with cross-claims. Kowalski seeks a declaratory 12 judgment that she, as legal guardian of E.K., is entitled to the proceeds because the LSA is a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security 14 Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (\"ERISA\"). She therefore contends that her claim takes 15 precedence over that of Valois. In the alternative, she argues Valois is not entitled to any of the 16 benefits because she \"exerted undue influence and control over [Marc] Kowalski such that she was 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: \"elevat[ing] a plan participant's legal obligations, 4 commonly to a former spouse or children of a previous marriage, over the participant's express 5 wishes to provide for other individuals as designated beneficiaries.\" Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.- 6 Prod. Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 425 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a threshold 7 question in this case is whether Kowalski's LSA is a QDRO; if it is, then it must take precedence 8 over Valois as the designated beneficiary. 9 The criteria for a QDRO are listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056. This section requires that a QDRO 10 clearly specify: 11 (i) the name and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ki seeks a declaratory 12 judgment that she, as legal guardian of E.K., is entitled to the proceeds because the LSA is a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security 14 Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (\"ERISA\"). She therefore contends that her claim takes 15 precedence over that of Valois. In the alternative, she argues Valois is not entitled to any of the 16 benefits because she \"exerted undue influence and control over [Marc] Kowalski such that she was 17 improperly listed as the beneficiary.\" Kowalski Cross-Claim ¶ 80. Finally, Kowalski brings a 18 second"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29dfef93-3a0d-4322-9921-643950dd9a6b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10074239-10074239","title":"CourtListener opinion 10074239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"342 F.3d 903","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: esignated beneficiary. 9 The criteria for a QDRO are listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056. This section requires that a QDRO 10 clearly specify: 11 (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee 12 covered by the order, 13 (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such 14 amount or percentage is to be determined, 15 (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and 16 (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 17 18 29 U"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10076278 Extracted reporter citation: 234 F.3d 27. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10076278 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ions for summary judgment to resolve 20 this question. Valois argues she is entitled to the policy proceeds because she is the named 21 beneficiary. Meanwhile, Kowalski contends her minor son, E.K., has a superior right to the funds 22 under the terms of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as defined by the Employee 23 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This order 24 concludes Kowalski's position is correct, and as such, her motion is granted, and Valois' is denied. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 The factual background of this action was previously summarized, but it is restated here 27 for referen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 16 each of these two plans would be under $800,000, could Kowalski argue E.K. was entitled to 17 $800,000 across both plans? These and other questions would readily abound — and that's only 18 with two plans in play. E.g., Vyas, 2017 WL 3841809, at *3 (six retirement plans at issue). 19 On these facts, however, the language is clear when read in the appropriate context, and the 20 fourth QDRO requirement is thus satisfied. Valois' additional argument that the LSA need not 21 provide increased benefits is a non-starter. The LSA in no way requires Hartford to \"affirmatively 22 afford a type or form of benefit not establish"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 4 with cross-claims, and these cross-motions for summary judgment on the QDRO issue followed. 25 26 1 As the Ninth Circuit has observed, this particular field of law, \"unfortunately, requires some tolerance for acronyms.\" Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Prod. Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 27 415, 419 (9th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 255 F.3d 661. 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when \"there 3 is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 4 law.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"023b6dd1-6589-46fc-8612-6bd92e77c18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10076278-10076278","title":"CourtListener opinion 10076278","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: she is the named 21 beneficiary. Meanwhile, Kowalski contends her minor son, E.K., has a superior right to the funds 22 under the terms of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as defined by the Employee 23 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This order 24 concludes Kowalski's position is correct, and as such, her motion is granted, and Valois' is denied. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 The factual background of this action was previously summarized, but it is restated here 27 for reference. \"Marc Kowalski died on December 30, 2020. Prior to his death, Mr. Kowalski 1 Inc.,\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10077430 Extracted reporter citation: 361 F.3d 566. Docket: 99. 21 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10077430 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ime during the Class Period (August 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020), including any 6 beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in the 7 case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the 8 Class Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants, including the individual members of the Board of Directors of LinkedIn 9 Corporation, and the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee, and their beneficiaries, during the Class Period. 10 Mot. 2; see Decl. of Kolin C. Tang ISO P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-05704-EJD 9 IN RE LINKEDIN ERISA LITIGATION ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 10 ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR 11 ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 12 Re: ECF No. 148 13 Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson (collectively, 14 \"Plaintiffs\") filed this putative class action individually and as participa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS 12 Re: ECF No. 148 13 Plaintiffs Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson (collectively, 14 \"Plaintiffs\") filed this putative class action individually and as participants of the LinkedIn 15 Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (\"the Plan\") against Defendants LinkedIn 16 Corporation (\"LinkedIn\"), LinkedIn Corporation's Board of Directors (\"the Board\"), and LinkedIn 17 Corporation's 401(k) Committee (\"the Committee\") asserting breach of their fiduciary duties under 18 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd6f0f7-6e31-41c5-b66c-732c84f98e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10077430-10077430","title":"CourtListener opinion 10077430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99. 21 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 F.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 5 All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time during the Class Period (August 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020), including any 6 beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in the 7 case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the 8 Class Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants, including the individual members of the Board of Directors of LinkedIn 9 Corporation, and the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Committee, and their beneficia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10080106 Extracted reporter citation: 250 F.3d 668. Docket: 50. Oppositions were 25. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10080106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eptember 13, 2017, the District Court 231st Judicial District of Tarrant 16 County issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay $55,533.03 in child support arrearages 17 to Young. Id. ¶ 22. According to the FAC, Young subsequently submitted a 401(k) 18 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"401(k) QDRO\") and Stock Domestic Relations 19 Order (\"Stock DRO\") to the District Court 231st Judicial District of Tarrant County for 20 the court's signature. Id. ¶¶ 24, 32. Plaintiff alleges that the 401(k) QDRO submitted 21 sought to transfer to Young 100 percent of the benefits held in Plaintiff's account in the 22 401(k) Plan, and the Sto"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tion of the QDRO and Stock DRO, which, for the reasons stated 3 above would be barred by Rooker-Feldman. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the sixth 4 cause of action with prejudice. See Williams-Ilunga v. Directors/Trustees of Producer- 5 Writers Guild of Am. Pension Plan, 682 F. App'x 633, 634 (9th Cir. 2017) 6 (\"Under Rooker-Feldman, there is no defect to be cured: a subsequent federal claim is 7 completely barred if it amounts to ‘a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.'\") 8 (citing Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004)). 9 In sum, the Court DISMISSES the fourth and sixth causes of a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 8,010 Incentive Stock 27 Options were transferred to Young pursuant to the Stock DRO. Id. ¶ 57. 28 1 The FAC was filed on June 19, 2019. ECF No. 45. The FAC alleges the following 2 causes of action: 3 First Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as to 4 Defendants Ligand and Does 1-20 for improperly 5 approving the 401(k) QDRO 6 Second Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty as to Defendant Ligand 7 for ignoring information that called into question 8 the validity of the 401(k) QDRO 9 Third Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty as to Defendant Ligand 10 for failure to follow ERISA proc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe1aa60b-c555-4231-9157-509b28afbf4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10080106-10080106","title":"CourtListener opinion 10080106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50. Oppositions were 25","extracted_reporter_citation":"250 F.3d 668","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): CV-2856-GPC-MSB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING 16 INCORPORATED, LIGAND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO 17 PHARMACEUTICALS SEAL; DENYING DEFENDANT INCORPORATED 401(k) PLAN; and YOUNG'S MOTION FOR 18 DOES 1 through 20, SANCTIONS 19 Defendants. [ECF Nos.: 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 58] 20 21 22 Before the Court are Defendant Carla Young's (\"Young\") motion to dismiss the 23 first amended complaint (\"FAC\"), ECF No. 46, and Defendant Ligand Pharmaceuticals 24 Incorporated's (\"Ligand\") motion to dismiss the FAC. ECF No."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10082165 Extracted reporter citation: 425 U.S. 738. Docket: 8. Plaintiff. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10082165 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f's objection. 26 4 Because this matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true the 27 allegations set forth in the complaint. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. Of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). 28 1 relations order (‘QDRO').\" Id. ¶ 14. Defendants did not notify Plaintiff that the MSA 2 was accepted as a QDRO or that \"a purported ‘domestic relations order' had been 3 submitted to them for division of Mr. Sargent's benefits under the Plan dictating that a 4 portion thereof to be assigned to Plaintiff.\" Id. ¶ 15. Further, Defendants did not notify 5 Plaintiff of the Plan's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: must first isolate and define the underlying 2 violation upon which . . . [plaintiff's] claim is founded.\" Ziegler v. Connecticut Gen. Life 3 Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 548, 550–51 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Meagher v. Int'l Ass'n of 4 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Pension Plan, 856 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir. 1988)). 5 Here, Plaintiff alleges several actions that breached Defendants' fiduciary duties, some of 6 which appear to involve breaches occurring in or around 2008. See Compl. ¶¶ 42–45. 7 However, in her opposition brief, Plaintiff clarifies and emphasizes that the alleged 8 breach \"arises out of the arbitrary and ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: S' MOTION TO DISMISS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Milissa Ann Sargent (\"Plaintiff\") alleges three causes of action: (1) an Employee 20 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") claim for benefits pursuant to 29 21 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim pursuant to 29 22 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1132(a)(3); and (3) declaratory relief. Doc. No. 1 (\"Compl.\").1 23 Defendants Edison 401(k) Savings Plan (\"Plan\"), Southern California Edison Company 24 Benefits Committee (\"Committee\"), Plan Administrator of the E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78bc1c9b-5f6d-4beb-b905-1315fcf3b4aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082165-10082165","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILISSA ANN SARGENT, Case No. 20-cv-1296-MMA (RBB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Milissa Ann Sargent (\"Plaintiff\") alleges three causes of action: (1) an Employee 20 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") claim for benefits pursuant to 29 21 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim pursuant to 29 22 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1132(a)(3); an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10082976 Extracted reporter citation: 967 F.2d 1298. Docket: 18. Plaintiff. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10082976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff was awarded and is entitled to a portion of Mr. Sargent's 12 benefits under the Plan.\" Id. ¶ 13. In March 2008, Mr. Sargent provided a copy of the 13 MSA to the Plan Administrator, who accepted the MSA as a \"valid qualified domestic 14 relations order (‘QDRO').\" Id. ¶ 14.4 Defendants did not notify Plaintiff that the MSA 15 was accepted as a QDRO or that \"a purported ‘domestic relations order' had been 16 submitted to them for division of Mr. Sargent's benefits under the Plan dictating that a 17 18 19 subsequently used by Plaintiff. See Sargent v. S. California Edison 401(k) Sav. Plan, No. 20-CV-1296- MMA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: declaratory relief claim is premised on her remaining ERISA claim. See 19 Compl. ¶ 50. Because Plaintiff does not state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, she 20 does not state a claim for declaratory relief. See Circle v. W. Conference of Teamsters 21 Pension Tr., No. 3:17-cv-00313-YY, 2017 WL 4102490, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 31, 2017), 22 report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Trina Circle v. W. Conference of 23 Teamsters Pension Tr., No. 3:17-cv-00313-YY, 2017 WL 4102584 (D. Or. Sept. 15, 24 2017) (\"Plaintiff has attempted to assert stand-alone claims for declaratory judgment and 25 rescission. However, dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 18] Defendants. 16 17 18 Milissa Ann Sargent (\"Plaintiff\") seeks relief under the Employee Retirement 19 Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). Doc. No. 1 (\"Compl.\").1 Defendants Edison 20 401(k) Savings Plan (\"Plan\"), Southern California Edison Company Benefits Committee 21 (\"Committee\"), Plan Administrator of the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan (\"Plan 22 Administrator\"), and Southern California Edison Company (\"Company\" or \"SEC\") 23 (collectively, \"Defendants\")2 move for judgment on the pleadin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33cebdb5-acf0-49b0-8e8b-2bb9b625baf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10082976-10082976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10082976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18. Plaintiff","extracted_reporter_citation":"967 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILISSA ANN SARGENT, Case No. 20-cv-1296-MMA (RBB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 13 v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 18] Defendants. 16 17 18 Milissa Ann Sargent (\"Plaintiff\") seeks relief under the Employee Retirement 19 Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). Doc. No. 1 (\"Compl.\").1 Defendants Edison 20 401(k) Savings Plan (\"Plan\"), Southern California Edison Company Benefits Committee 21 (\"Committee\"), Plan Administrator of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32813358-fe03-4e74-82a9-327502cf998d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971","title":"CourtListener opinion 10084971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"JCF32230 was affirmed on direct","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10084971 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: JCF32230 was affirmed on direct. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10084971 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32813358-fe03-4e74-82a9-327502cf998d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971","title":"CourtListener opinion 10084971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"JCF32230 was affirmed on direct","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32813358-fe03-4e74-82a9-327502cf998d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10084971-10084971","title":"CourtListener opinion 10084971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"JCF32230 was affirmed on direct","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tencing as to his prior strike and serious felony enhancements, that the Court of Appeal's opinions require his release. They do not. Franklin's judgment of conviction for making a criminal threat in 24 violation of Cal. Penal Code § 422 and disobeying a domestic relations order in violation of Cal. Penal 25 Code § 273.6(a) in Superior Court Case No. JCF32230 was affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Franklin, 2017 WL 382692, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Jan. 27, 2017) (D068891) (unpub.). The Court 26 of Appeals did vacate Franklin's subsequent resentencing order, and remanded the case again, but only to afford him"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10086617 Extracted reporter citation: 142 S. Ct. 7. Docket: 103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10086617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Plaintiff 18,010 stock options in two lots 12 (\"Incentive Stock Options\"). Id. ¶ 26. 13 Plaintiff alleges that in late 2017, Young and law firm KoonsFuller1 14 \"surreptitiously\" prepared a document purported to be a qualified domestic relations 15 order (\"QDRO\") seeking 100 percent of the benefits in Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account 16 (the \"401(k) QDRO\"). Id. ¶ 30. The Texas 231st court signed the 401(k) QDRO on or 17 about November 21, 2017. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff alleges he was not notified that the 401(k) 18 QDRO was submitted to the Texas 231st court and was not given an opportunity to 19 review, approve, or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: icipant had retired on the date on which such payment is to 27 begin under such order (but taking into account only the present value of 1 1056(d)(3)(D)(i)5 only applies if the Plan Participant had already \"reached the age where 2 he is eligible to receive retirement benefits under the terms of the pension plan, but he [had] 3 not actually retired or terminated his employment.\" Id. at 133-34 (citing legislative history). 4 § 1056(d)(3)(E)(ii) defines the \"earliest retirement age\" as either: \"(1) the date on which 5 the participant is entitled to a distribution under the plan; or (2) the later of the date of the 6 participan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . & Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 301- 17 02 (2009) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080, 1084 (7th Cir. 18 1994)). A plan administrator is not required to determine questions of law or resolve 19 factual disputes. Id. \"[U]nder ERISA, the pension plan must pay the bearer of a DRO if it 20 determines that the order is a proper QDRO, without further inquiry; compliance with a 21 QDRO is obligatory.'\" Trs. of the Dirs. Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits 22 Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 424 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A) (\"Each 23 pension plan shall provide for the payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7347ee0a-ea9c-4f9e-8da8-3d05629441b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086617-10086617","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"103. 10 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 11 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"142 S. Ct. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: his entire 401(k) account to Young as well as 18,010 11 Incentive Stock Options to Young with a present value in excess of $4 million. Id. ¶ 68. 12 The SAC filed on May 25, 2022 alleges the following causes of action: 13 First Cause of Action: Violation of ERISA as to Defendant Ligand for 14 distributing the 401(k) in violation of the Plan 15 terms 16 Second Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as to 17 Defendant Ligand and Does 1-20 for failing to 18 determine whether the requirements for the 19 qualified status of a DRO are satisfied 20 Third Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty under"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1e6311b-279f-45fa-a903-8c4074dec0c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"117. Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10086655 Extracted reporter citation: 869 F.2d 1298. Docket: 117. Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10086655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1e6311b-279f-45fa-a903-8c4074dec0c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"117. Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1e6311b-279f-45fa-a903-8c4074dec0c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"117. Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ments and factual representations in the 21 Second Amended Complaint were not so frivolous as to warrant Rule 11 sanctions. 22 First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff misrepresented the lack of notice he received 23 as to the Texas court entering the 401(k) QDRO and Stock DRO. Plaintiff and Defendant 24 appear to be talking past each other on this point. In the Motion for Sanctions, Young 25 argues Plaintiff Lundstrom received notice of the March 22, 2017 and April 5, 2017 26 hearings, and that this fact is uncontested. ECF No. 113-1 at 10. Plaintiff responds that 27 1 his notice of those hearings is irrelevan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1e6311b-279f-45fa-a903-8c4074dec0c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"117. Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mine that the complaint is well-founded. See also Truesdell v. So. 22 Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 209 F.R.D. 169, 174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Cases warranting the 23 impositions of sanctions for frivolous complaints are \"rare and exceptional,\" Operating 24 Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 26 1 The cited page numbers refer to CM/ECF pagination. 27 1 28 U.S.C § 1927 states that an attorney may not \"multipl[y] the proceedings in any 2 case unreasonably and vexatiously.\" Sanctions under § 1927 must be supported by a 3 finding of subjective bad faith. New Alaska Dev. Corp., 869 F."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1e6311b-279f-45fa-a903-8c4074dec0c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10086655-10086655","title":"CourtListener opinion 10086655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"117. Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 F.2d 1298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 13 v. YOUNG'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; 15 [ECF No. 113] LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 16 401(k) PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Defendant Young's (\"Defendant\" or \"Young\") Motion for 20 Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (\"Rule\") 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 21 ECF No. 113. Plaintiff Brian Lundstrom (\"Plaintiff\" or \"Lundstrom\") filed a Response on 22 September 14, 2022. ECF No. 117. Defendant Y"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10087073 Extracted reporter citation: 608 F.3d 1118. Docket: 45. 25 Defendant Young. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10087073 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: options. 7 Id. ¶ 26. Both the 401(k) Plan account and the stock options are at issue. 8 In his Second Amended Complaint (\"SAC\"), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 9 Young and law firm KoonsFuller \"surreptitiously\" prepared a document purporting to be 10 a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") seeking transfer of all the benefits in 11 Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account (the \"401(k) QDRO\") to Defendant Young. Id. ¶ 30. 12 Plaintiff alleged he was not notified the 401(k) QDRO was submitted to the Texas court 13 and was not given an opportunity to review, approve, or contest the validity of the Order. 14 Id. ¶¶ 32-34. 15 As to the stock"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: preclusion, in the first instance.\" Id. at 6. 8 On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his SAC. ECF No. 92. Plaintiff's SAC alleged 9 five causes of action as to Defendant Young: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) conversion; (3) 10 equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA; (4) equitable and injunctive relief under 11 state law; and (5) breach of contract as intended third-party beneficiary. Id. ¶¶ 125-176. 12 Defendant Young filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 97. Plaintiff conceded 13 dismissal of the breach of contract claim. ECF No. 120 at 32-33. In its October 27, 2022 14 Order, the Court dismissed the four re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 10 11 BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. YOUNG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 14 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LIGAND 15 [ECF No. 123] PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 401(k) 16 PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On November 10, 2022, Defendant Carla Young (\"Defendant\" or \"Young\") filed a 20 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. ECF No. 123. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff Brian 21 Lundstrom (\"Plaintiff\" or \"Lundstrom\") filed an Opposition. ECF No. 140. On January 22 10, 2023, Young filed a Reply. ECF No. 141. For th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59cfd4e5-b8d3-4e1d-b582-0a880e4d2cf6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10087073-10087073","title":"CourtListener opinion 10087073","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45. 25 Defendant Young","extracted_reporter_citation":"608 F.3d 1118","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 7 Id. ¶ 26. Both the 401(k) Plan account and the stock options are at issue. 8 In his Second Amended Complaint (\"SAC\"), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 9 Young and law firm KoonsFuller \"surreptitiously\" prepared a document purporting to be 10 a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") seeking transfer of all the benefits in 11 Plaintiff's 401(k) Plan account (the \"401(k) QDRO\") to Defendant Young. Id. ¶ 30. 12 Plaintiff alleged he was not notified the 401(k) QDRO was submitted to the Texas court 13 and was not given an opportunity to review, approve, or contest the validity of the Order. 14 Id. ¶¶ 32-34. 15 As to the stock"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10088634 Extracted reporter citation: 425 U.S. 391. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10088634 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: most knowledgeable (\"PMK\"), Matt Korenberg; and Ligand's General 25 Counsel, Charles Berkman, to answer questions regarding Berkman and Warfield- 26 Graham's communications with outside counsel at Latham & Watkins LLP (\"Latham & 27 Watkins\") related to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), whose execution 2 After carefully reviewing the Parties' Joint Discovery Motion, supporting exhibits, 3 and the authorities cited therein, the Court finds this motion suitable for ruling on the 4 pleadings presently before the Court. The Court finds that Ligand's communications 5 with outside counsel at Latham & Watkins were directed to Defend"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: losure to the beneficiary, courts \"focus on the ‘intended recipient of 6 the advice and the purpose for which it is sought,'\" rather than on a distinction between 7 fiduciary and non-fiduciary activities. Ely v. Bd. of Trustees of PACE Indus. Union-Mgmt. 8 Pension Fund, 334 F.R.D. 289, 294–95 (D. Idaho 2020) (quoting Fischel v. Equitable Life 9 Assurance, 191 F.R.D. 606, 609 (N.D. Cal. 2000)) (\"[C]ourts should . . . focus on whether 10 the advice was sought for the benefit of the beneficiaries, as opposed to whether the 11 advice is sought for the trustee's own protection.\"). One court construed the Mett rule 12"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 6 and only three causes of action remain against Ligand and the 401(k) Plan: (1) Ligand 7 distributed the benefits in Plaintiff's 401(k) account in violation of the 401(k) Plan's 8 terms, (ECF No. 120 at 27); (2) Ligand violated section 1056(d)(3)(G)(i) of ERISA by failing 9 to promptly provide Plaintiff a copy of the 401(k) Plan's procedures for determining the 10 qualified status of a Domestic Relations Order, by not having a written policy in place 11 outlining those procedures, and failing to send Plaintiff a written notification that the 12 QDRO had satisfied the requirements under the 401(k) Plan and the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a5b8864-1b18-43bf-aab1-7ff6feee14d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10088634-10088634","title":"CourtListener opinion 10088634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"425 U.S. 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 02] 14 CARLA YOUNG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Joint Discovery Motion, filed by Plaintiff Brian 18 Lundstrom (\"Plaintiff\"), and Defendants Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (\"Ligand\") 19 and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the \"401(k) Plan\") (collectively 20 \"Defendants\") (\"the Parties\"), which asks this Court to determine whether certain 21 communications between Ligand employees and outside counsel are protected from 22 discovery by Plaintiff based on the attorney-client privilege. (ECF No. 202.) Specifically, 23 Plaintiff seeks to compel Ligand's Chief People Off"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10089520 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Docket: 242. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10089520 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Exclude Expert Testimony. ECF No. 215. That 26 motion is DENIED as moot. The Parties' Motions to Seal and Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. ECF Nos. 217, 219, 229, 232. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 At the heart of this six-year-old case rests a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 3 (\"QDRO\"), signed by a state court judge in Texas and served upon Ligand in December 4 of 2017, directing the transfer of Plaintiff's entire 401(k) savings to his ex-wife, Carla 5 Young. ECF No. 120. Ligand notified Plaintiff of the QDRO in January of 2018. Id. at 6 3. Plaintiff immediately sought to invalidate the QDRO in the Texas state appellate 7"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: not otherwise permitted 14 under the pension plan and to disburse pension funds to the alternate payee spouse prior 15 to the participant James Dickerson reaching age 55 which is the earliest retirement age 16 when he is eligible to begin receiving normal retirement benefits under the terms of the 17 SERF plan.\" Id. at 134. In other words, the decree didn't qualify as a QDRO because it 18 required immediate distribution in violation of the plan's terms. The court further 19 concluded that 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(E)—which provides certain exceptions by which 20 \"[a] domestic relations order shall not be treated as failing to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ated in the QDRO. But facts 8 developed through discovery have rendered Dickerson distinguishable. In Dickerson, the 9 court was asked whether a divorce decree constituted a valid QDRO where the decree 10 required immediate distribution of the ex-husband's pension benefits—even though the 11 ex-husband was not yet eligible for distribution, and the pension plan's terms did not 12 provide for early distributions. Id. at 131. The court reasoned that the decree could not 13 be a QDRO because it required the plan \"to provide a benefit not otherwise permitted 14 under the pension plan and to disburse pension funds to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e2a891e-50b8-44d4-b2ab-7a81188f886c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10089520-10089520","title":"CourtListener opinion 10089520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"242. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ging the 15 validity of the QDRO, and the Court dismissed each of Plaintiff's claims that attempted 16 to relitigate the issue in federal court. ECF No. 120. Only three claims remain: 17 Plaintiff's first cause of action, which alleges that Ligand violated ERISA by distributing 18 his 401(k) funds prematurely; Plaintiff's fourth cause of action, which alleges that Ligand 19 violated ERISA by failing to provide him with its written procedures for determining the 20 qualified status of the domestic relations order; and Plaintiff's twelfth cause of action, 21 which alleges that Ligand retaliated against him for fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10090002 Extracted reporter citation: 73 F.3d 1057. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10090002 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Defendant with the divorce decree and other documentation to support her claim. Nonetheless, Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim based on its determination that the separation agreement did not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). In its letter denying the claim, Defendant stated that the separation agreement \"does not meet QDRO requirements because it does not specify an amount of insurance to carry and it does not specify the name of the benefit plan.\" (ECF No. 125-4, Adverse Benefit Determination at 1.) Plaintiff brought an action in state court, which Defendant removed to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: dant that the divorce decree is not a QDRO because it fails to identify each plan to which it applies. Plaintiff objects to that determination. The Court reviews the matter de novo. III. ANALYSIS Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), federal law preempts nearly all state law claims relating to employee benefit plans. Carland v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 1991). However, a limited exception applies to divorce decrees issued by state courts that meet the QDRO requirements. Id. at 1119. This exception to federal preemption \"protect[s] spouses and dependents"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e plan's benefits.\" Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 698, 702 (6th Cir. 2017). To qualify as a QDRO, an order must clearly specify (i) the name and last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e1d9d7e-dbc9-4bd9-9112-ca59029175ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10090002-10090002","title":"CourtListener opinion 10090002","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"73 F.3d 1057","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pouse) as beneficiary . . . .\" (ECF No. 128-1 at 3.) Had Plaintiff and Mr. Steele checked the corresponding box and used this part of the form agreement, perhaps ascertaining their intent would be a less formidable challenge. But in any event, \"[w]hether a domestic relations order qualifies as a QDRO depends on the language of the order itself; the subjective intentions of the parties are not controlling.\" Hawkins, 86 F.3d at 989-90. The QDRO requirements are not optional, see id. at 992, and the Court finds that the language of the separation agreement fails to \"clearly specify\" two of the statutory requirements. First, the se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10095241 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10095241 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o appealed the denial with the assistance of an attorney. Id. at ¶ 30. She submitted additional documents with her appeal that purported to show that she lived with Peñaloza for more than one year prior to May 1, 2014, id. at ¶ 33, but she did not submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, id. at ¶ 34. On April 13, 2016, the Appeals Committee considered the appeal and acted on behalf of the Trustees to deny it because Astudillo did not meet the requirements of a surviving spouse under Section 8.03 of Article VIII of the Plan. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32, 35. The Fund's Board of Trustees ratified this decision. Id. at ¶ 36. Astudillo was notified of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MERY ANN ASTUDILLO, No. 3:18-cv-394 (MPS) Plaintiff, v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION INDUSTRY PENSION FUND Defendant. RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mery Ann Astudillo (\"Astudillo\") brought this civil action pro se against United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Industry Pension Fund (the \"Fund\") for wrongfully denying her payment of her deceased husband's pension in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Sec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s civil action pro se against United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Industry Pension Fund (the \"Fund\") for wrongfully denying her payment of her deceased husband's pension in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The Fund filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. FACTS The following facts are taken from UFCW's Local Rule 56(a) statement and supporting exhibits.1 1 Local Rule 56(a)2 requires the party opposing summary judgment to submit a Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement which indicates"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfd9a966-44d9-45bd-b941-093d0e166434","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10095241-10095241","title":"CourtListener opinion 10095241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant\" and \"is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law.\" Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). A qualified domestic relations order means a domestic relations order that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). Astudillo did not submit a qualified domestic relations order. ECF No. 44-3 at ¶ 34. In sum, the undisputed facts show that Astudillo and Peñaloza were not married for the f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10111460 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10111460 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n's interest in Adam Anderson's death benefit under the MS Plan. (Id. at 21–22). On or about October 26, 2021, after Eva and Adam Anderson's deaths, the Family Court for the Divorce Action entered an order entitled \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" (\"QDRO\") with respect to Michelle Anderson's share of Adam Anderson's interest in the Profit-Sharing Plan. (Id. at 37). The purported QDRO directed Plaintiff Ben Hill Griffin to divide Adam Anderson's interest in the Profit-Sharing Plan into two separate accounts, effective December 31, 2011: one account to be allocated and assigned to Defendant Michelle An"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dings of Fact This ERISA case arises out of the tragic deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson on July 19, 2021. Adam W. Anderson's employer, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., seeks a declaratory judgment as to the distribution of Adam Anderson's deferred compensation and retirement plans. A. The Parties Adam W. Anderson (\"Adam Anderson\") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 20). Until his passing, Adam Anderson was an employee with Plaintiff Ben Hill Griffin, Inc. (Doc. # 47-8). Eva W. Anderson (\"Eva Anderson\") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 7–8)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ants.\" As mentioned above, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., the Plaintiff in this case, was the employer of Adam Anderson until his death on June 19, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 10). Ben Hill Griffin, Inc. is the administrator of two of Adam Anderson's ERISA covered employee pension benefit plans. (Id. at ¶ 3). B. The Deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson Adam and Eva Anderson were found dead at their residence in Frostproof, FL, on the morning of June 19, 2021. (Doc. # 73-1 at 7). No one else was present with the couple at the time of their deaths. (Id.). The manner of Eva Anderson's death was determined to be a homicide, caused by t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"234be954-9c69-48d7-a9ee-65e29ad06608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10111460-10111460","title":"CourtListener opinion 10111460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nd Defendants A.W.A., Adam \"AJ\" Anderson, Cierra Michelle Anderson, Michelle R. Anderson, Candice Nicole Luke, and Sheenia Dannett Nealey replied on June 16, 2022. (Doc. # 80). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. I. Findings of Fact This ERISA case arises out of the tragic deaths of Adam and Eva Anderson on July 19, 2021. Adam W. Anderson's employer, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., seeks a declaratory judgment as to the distribution of Adam Anderson's deferred compensation and retirement plans. A. The Parties Adam W. Anderson (\"Adam Anderson\") is a deceased individual who died on or about June 19,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10125348 Extracted case name: TES v. EMILY REEVES PRESSLEY. Extracted reporter citation: 377 F.3d 1173. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10125348 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an action to be preempted by ERISA, and to give rise to federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must fall \"within the scope\" of ERISA § 502(a)(1)(b)). Lastly, the Court noted that Plaintiffs argue the underlying divorce decree qualifies as a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (\"QDRO\"), which would, according to Plaintiffs, \"exempt the plan from Federal preemption.\" [Doc. 19-1, p. 4]; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). The Court also explained to the parties that if the Court did have jurisdiction over this case, ERISA and federal common law—not state law—would govern the dispute. Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cros"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: On August 26, 2022, then-Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company1 removed the case to this Court. In the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1], Hartford cited its basis for removal as § 502(a) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Specifically, Hartford argued that Plaintiffs' claims \"seek relief that is available under § 502(a) of ERISA.\" [Doc. 1, p. 3 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B))]. Hartford argued that because Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by ERISA, this Court could exercise federal question jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C § 1132(e)(1) and 28"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C) (emphasis added). Here, the Decree does not clearly specify the plan to which the order applies. Instead, the Decree required Dale Pres"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4605411-f431-49e1-bedd-32c1ee5afb36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10125348-10125348","title":"CourtListener opinion 10125348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"377 F.3d 1173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to be preempted by ERISA, and to give rise to federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must fall \"within the scope\" of ERISA § 502(a)(1)(b)). Lastly, the Court noted that Plaintiffs argue the underlying divorce decree qualifies as a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (\"QDRO\"), which would, according to Plaintiffs, \"exempt the plan from Federal preemption.\" [Doc. 19-1, p. 4]; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). The Court also explained to the parties that if the Court did have jurisdiction over this case, ERISA and federal common law—not state law—would govern the dispute. Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cros"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10126607 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10126607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 16, Jimmy signed his Last Will and Testament naming Billy as his sole heir and executor of his estate. (Id.) On July 26, 2016, Jimmy entered into a Prenuptial Agreement with Beulah Jean James (\"Beulah\"), whereby Beulah waived all rights to any 401(k) and retirement benefits held by Jimmy and consented to Jimmy appointing another beneficiary to receive those benefits. (Id. ¶ 12.) In the Prenuptial Agreement, Jimmy and Beulah specifically agreed that neither would \"claim, demand, assert any right to, take or receive any part of the property of the other as described in Schedules 1 and 2.\" (Id. ¶ 13.) Schedule 1 specificall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff Billy Moore (\"Plaintiff\" or \"Billy\") is the brother of Jimmy L. Moore (\"Jimmy\"), who was an employee of NCR Corporation (\"NCR\") and a participant in the 401(k) Plan and Pension Plan (collectively referred to herein as the \"Plans\"). (First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 24] ¶ 1.) The \"Named Fiduciary\" for both Plans is the Plan Administration Committee. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Plan Administrator for both Plans is also the Plan Administration Committee. (Compl., Ex. 1 at § 11.3, Ex. 2 at § 8.3.) NCR is the Plan Sponsor. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Fid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ppeal was denied. (Id. ¶ 32.) By letter dated June 6, 2018, Billy submitted additional arguments to NCR as to why he believed the disbursement was imprudent and violated fiduciary pronouncements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") and requested relief for the same. (Id.) On August 9, 2018, NCR's counsel informed Billy's counsel that no relief would be provided. (Id.) On July 27, 2020, Billy submitted a letter to Fidelity notifying Fidelity of his claims against it for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking relief for the same. (Id. ¶ 33.) On September 14, 2020, F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"571f078c-d8d0-4a64-b5cd-b89b29b6bdd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10126607-10126607","title":"CourtListener opinion 10126607","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): No. 15]. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff Billy Moore (\"Plaintiff\" or \"Billy\") is the brother of Jimmy L. Moore (\"Jimmy\"), who was an employee of NCR Corporation (\"NCR\") and a participant in the 401(k) Plan and Pension Plan (collectively referred to herein as the \"Plans\"). (First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 24] ¶ 1.) The \"Named Fiduciary\" for both Plans is the Plan Administration Committee. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Plan Administrator for both Plans is also the Plan Administration Committee. (Compl., Ex. 1 at § 11.3, Ex. 2 at § 8.3.) NCR is the Plan Sponsor. (First Am."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10139374 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Black. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 19-3. Trout. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10139374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Id. ¶ 15. The motion recited that \"[t]he Plan Administrator of Wertz's life insurance policy may be governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and if so, there would be a question as to whether the December 16, 2014 order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (QDRO) under ERISA, and QDRO status is necessary for Prudential to comply with the December 16, 2014 order.\" Id. The motion further stated that \"in order to effectuate the interest of the December 16, 2014 order, the order must be clarified nunc pro tunc to provide that it is a QDRO as defined under ERISA.\" Id. Trout objected that the state trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n uncomplicated rule: \"simple administration, avoid[ing] double liability, and ensur[ing] that beneficiaries get what's coming quickly, without the folderol essential under less- certain rules.\" Id. at 301 (quoting Fox Valley & Vicinity Constr. Workers Pension Fund v. Brown, 897 F.2d 275, 283 (7th Cir. 1990)). Thus, if ERISA controls distribution of the proceeds at issue here and no exception applies, their distribution \"stands and falls\" with the plan documents, which would provide clearly for distribution to the named beneficiaries. Id. The parties apparently agree that the group plan at issue is covered b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: filed in the divorce proceedings a motion to clarify nunc pro tunc the December 2014 order. Id. ¶ 15. The motion recited that \"[t]he Plan Administrator of Wertz's life insurance policy may be governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and if so, there would be a question as to whether the December 16, 2014 order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (QDRO) under ERISA, and QDRO status is necessary for Prudential to comply with the December 16, 2014 order.\" Id. The motion further stated that \"in order to effectuate the interest of the December 16, 2014 order, the order must be c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae231a9-8199-446f-a83e-37a41d0b7cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10139374-10139374","title":"CourtListener opinion 10139374","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3. Trout","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ned in section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (\"Code\"), and section 206(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (\"ERISA\"), so as to provide certain Plan benefits, as hereinafter specified, to an \"Alternate Payee\" (within the meaning of section 414(p)(8) of the Code and section 206(d)(3)(K) of ERISA). This Order shall be administered and interpreted in conformity with the provisions thereof which shall preempt any provisions of state law inconsistent therewith. No amendment of this Order shall require the Plan to provide any type or form of benefit, or any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10141410 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Murphy. Extracted reporter citation: 130 F.3d 1245. Docket: 58. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10141410 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: details of the case. II. Uncontested Facts Roger Gossett and Cindy K. Gossett were divorced on or about November 30, 2006, in Harris County, Texas. Roger Gossett's Statement of Facts (\"RGSOF\") ¶ 9. As part of the divorce settlement, the two executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") on July 3, 2007, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B, ECF No. 58, which gave each of them a 50% interest in the vested accrued Fund benefits allocable to Mr. Gossett by virtue of his participation in the Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Plan. RGSOF ¶ 11. Ms. Gossett's divorce attorney sent a certified copy of the QDRO to the Fund in a letter dated March"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ms of the agreement after she approached him asking for a loan in 2011. In the absence of \"fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, where the parties have entered into a property settlement agreement wherein each has waived any and all interests in and to the retirement plan(s) of the other party, the parties are bound to the terms of their agreement.\" In re Marriage of McLauchlan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102114, ¶ 29, 966 N.E.2d 1151, 1160. What emerges from the evidence in this case is that Ms. Gossett needed money in 2011. 7 It bears noting that Ms. Gossett never explains how it is that she knew in 2017 that the pension be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ) CHICAGO PAINTERS AND ) DECORATORS PENSION FUND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 17 C 02658 ) ROGER GOSSETT and ) Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. CINDY K. GOSSETT, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this interpleader action, the Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Fund seeks a declaratory judgment as to whom to pay pension benefits earned by defendant/cross-plaintiff R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2c3fbb2-0f86-4e26-ac9b-1b0a292ce446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10141410-10141410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10141410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"58","extracted_reporter_citation":"130 F.3d 1245","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: d acknowledged that \"one hundred (100%) percent of said benefits shall be the sole and separate 3 The unenforceable provisions included a lump-sum payment for differences due to adjustment in benefits, an early retirement subsidy, and a beneficiary of the Alternate Payee, none of which are relevant to this action. See First Am. Compl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 23. property of Roger Gossett.\" RGSOF ¶ 20; Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F at 2, ECF No. 58. Ms. Gossett \"further agree[d] that she [would] sign any and all documents when submitted to her which will effectively terminate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order presently on file with th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10148838 Extracted reporter citation: 714 F.3d 1017. Docket: of participants. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10148838 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r plans Ad Hoc RKA services, which have separate, additional fees based on participants' conduct and usage of those services. Ad Hoc RKA services include loan processing, brokerage services and account maintenance, distribution services, and processing of qualified domestic relations orders. Recordkeepers mainly earn their fees from providing Bundled RKA services, not Ad Hoc RKA services. Recordkeepers may also perform certain RKA services on behalf of investment managers. In exchange, recordkeepers may collect a portion of the total expense ratio fee for the specific investment in a practice called revenue sharing or indirect compensatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hildren's Medical Center Of Dallas Employee Savings 9,356 $349,335,673 $337,416 $36 Fidelity Plan 403(B) Ralph Lauren Corporation 9,389 $552,586,935 $290,066 $31 T. Rowe 401(K) Plan Price Vibra Healthcare 9,750 $107,652,510 $277,532 $28 Great-West Retirement Plan Republic National 9,922 $671,989,837 $324,171 $33 Great-West 401(K) Plan S Ca Permanente Medical Group Tax Savings 10,770 $773,795,904 $333,038 $31 Vanguard Retirement Plan Employee Savings Plan 12,152 $933,346,984 $827,957 $68 Principal Average Fee Viacom 401(K) Plan 12,196 $1,249,874,734 $376,314 $31 Great-West Sutter Health Retirement 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: er 25, 2019, Reynolds' successor, Pactiv, became the Plan sponsor. BACKGROUND2 Pactiv provides household products, including preparation, cooking, cleanup, and storage solutions. Pactiv sponsors and provides employees with a § 401(k) defined contribution pension plan, Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. Employee Savings Plan (the \"Plan\"). Pactiv matched employees' contributions to the Plan. Pactiv's contributions to the payment of Plan costs are guaranteed but pension benefits are not. Instead, the market performance of participants' contributions less expenses determines the value of participants' investments. Pac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b4f6a47-4a9e-48b2-985e-c2bd1640bae6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10148838-10148838","title":"CourtListener opinion 10148838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of participants","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 F.3d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: a former participant in the Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. Employee Savings Plan (the \"Plan\") that Defendant Pactiv Evergreen Services Inc. (\"Pactiv\") sponsors,1 filed this purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., against Pactiv and its Board of Directors (the \"Director Defendants\"). In his amended complaint, Mazza complains that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by causing Plan participants to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative (\"RKA\") fees and that they failed to adequately monitor other Plan fiduciarie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10158142 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 729. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10158142 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ication of her beneficiary status. Id. Ex. 8A. On September 14, 2004, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff by letter that she was not entitled to benefits. Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 9A. In the letter, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff allege"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION JIMELLA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 1:18-CV-284-TLS CENTRAL STATES PENSION FUND, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's, Jimella Harris, Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2), (b) and (e) [ECF No. 36] and Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b)(6) [ECF No. 37]. In these motions, the Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tiff by letter that she was not entitled to benefits. Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 9A. In the letter, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that she endured a back-and-forth with the Defendant regarding a QDRO. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62e33e1-c764-4114-b4bb-786712417812","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10158142-10158142","title":"CourtListener opinion 10158142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 729","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ated that the Plaintiff's divorce decree was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a QDRO was needed because her ex-husband's pension was an ERISA regulated plan. Id. Ex. 9A. The Defendant further explained that the Plaintiff would not be an alternate payee entitled to pension benefits until the Defendant received a QDRO. Id. The Defendant also set forth in the letter the requirements for a QDRO. Id. The Plaintiff alleges that she endured a back-and-forth with the Defendant regarding a QDRO. Id. ¶ 9. The Plaintiff submitted a May 2008 order from the state court that the Defendant recognized as a \"domesti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10160562 Extracted reporter citation: 103 F.3d 584. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10160562 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specificall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: our Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ded the sum of Four Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c37b391c-5b64-4561-9aa2-c27ab0164991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10160562-10160562","title":"CourtListener opinion 10160562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 F.3d 584","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specificall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10166711 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10166711 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, Kathleen, divorced. During their divorce proceedings, a court entered a domestic relations order that divided Mr. Thorpe's pension benefits between him and Mrs. Thorpe. The pension fund administrator accepted the domestic relations order and entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to show in Mr. Thorpe's pension plan that part of his benefits were payable to Mrs. Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe applied for his pension in May 2008. He elected a 10-year certain pension option; the pension fund administrator confirmed the election and told Mr. Thorpe he would receive $3,847 per month. Mr. Thorpe asked Carol Lyons, a representative of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: N DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for pension plan benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the second is an alternative claim for benefits under a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71be5371-3be6-4631-b2b1-436eb56c27ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10166711-10166711","title":"CourtListener opinion 10166711","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for pension plan benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the second is an alternative claim for benefits under a theory of estoppel. The fund moves for judgment on th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10168308 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10168308 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: These are the undisputed facts. Mr. Thorpe has been a participant in the defendant pension fund since 1978. Mr. Thorpe and his wife, Kathleen Thorpe, divorced in 2006. During their divorce proceedings, a court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Mr. Thorpe's pension benefits between him and Ms. Thorpe. The order said that it was assigning \"a portion of Participant's benefits under the IBEW Pension Trust Fund (the Plan) to Alternate Payee in recognition of the existence of Alternate Payee's marital rights in Participants' vested defined benefit pension plan.\" Mr. Thorpe is the pla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: N DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electric"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02be2ddf-6720-46dd-b02d-ed032cd789d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10168308-10168308","title":"CourtListener opinion 10168308","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10178855 Extracted reporter citation: 607 F.3d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10178855 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ied in 2019, is a qualified domestic relations order exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's requirements. While this Act and the terms of the decedent's life insurance policy itself usually govern proceeds paid to beneficiaries, qualified domestic relations orders can supersede those designations. Defendant, who was married to Plaintiff's former husband at the time of his death, claims that the mediation agreement and decree are not specific enough to be a qualified domestic relations order. For the reasons stated below, all claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: he reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. \"The plausibility standard ... asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.\" Id. III. DISCUSSION A. Qualified domestic relations order ERISA exemption The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known by its acronym \"ERISA,\" is a federal statutory scheme that regulates private retirement and health plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(1). Under ERISA, participants and beneficiaries of these plans are determined \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ied domestic relations orders.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). \"A qualified domestic relations order includes any state ‘judgment, decree, or order' relating to the provision of ‘child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights' that recognizes an ‘alternate payee's right to … benefits' and meets a number of other requirements.\" Sun Life, 877 F.3d at 700-01 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)). A domestic order meets the requirements of this exemption only if the order clearly specifies: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"264c92a2-5829-430a-87b9-47dcacd29ec7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10178855-10178855","title":"CourtListener opinion 10178855","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"607 F.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 9, is a qualified domestic relations order exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's requirements. While this Act and the terms of the decedent's life insurance policy itself usually govern proceeds paid to beneficiaries, qualified domestic relations orders can supersede those designations. Defendant, who was married to Plaintiff's former husband at the time of his death, claims that the mediation agreement and decree are not specific enough to be a qualified domestic relations order. For the reasons stated below, all claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac31998e-c607-4ee0-bd69-4f59564ff115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295","title":"CourtListener opinion 10179295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"877 F.3d 698","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10179295 Extracted reporter citation: 877 F.3d 698. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10179295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac31998e-c607-4ee0-bd69-4f59564ff115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295","title":"CourtListener opinion 10179295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"877 F.3d 698","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac31998e-c607-4ee0-bd69-4f59564ff115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295","title":"CourtListener opinion 10179295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"877 F.3d 698","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nsurance policy pursuant to its terms. ERISA mandates that beneficiaries of life insurance plans are determined \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1)(D). An exception exists where the parties have a \"qualified domestic relations order\" that clearly specifies a number of details about the plan and beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). To determine if the settlement agreement met the level of specificity required by ERISA's exemption, the Court examined the agreement and applied relevant case law interpreting the statute. Plaintiff claimed that \"substantial compliance\" with 29 U."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac31998e-c607-4ee0-bd69-4f59564ff115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295","title":"CourtListener opinion 10179295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"877 F.3d 698","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and Local Rule 54.4. [DE 13]. Defendant Grace Ross seeks attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\") after the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff Dawn Ross's claims against her. [DEs 11, 12]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the request for attorney's fees [DE 15] and Defendant has replied [DE 17], making this matter ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion for attorney's fees is DENIED. I. FACTUAL AND PRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac31998e-c607-4ee0-bd69-4f59564ff115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10179295-10179295","title":"CourtListener opinion 10179295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"877 F.3d 698","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: olicy pursuant to its terms. ERISA mandates that beneficiaries of life insurance plans are determined \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1)(D). An exception exists where the parties have a \"qualified domestic relations order\" that clearly specifies a number of details about the plan and beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). To determine if the settlement agreement met the level of specificity required by ERISA's exemption, the Court examined the agreement and applied relevant case law interpreting the statute. Plaintiff claimed that \"substantial compliance\" with 29 U."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85eee0f2-a9d9-43b3-8d65-8cb4847e4e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256","title":"CourtListener opinion 10180256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10180256 Extracted reporter citation: 726 F.3d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10180256 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85eee0f2-a9d9-43b3-8d65-8cb4847e4e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256","title":"CourtListener opinion 10180256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85eee0f2-a9d9-43b3-8d65-8cb4847e4e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256","title":"CourtListener opinion 10180256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sary in cases where a statute of limitations was missed, a plea offer was not conveyed, or where an attorney had a conflict of interest. By contrast, Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law. Thus, the necessity of expert testimony is dictated by the nature of the alleged malpractice. If the alleged negligence involves the exercise of legal judgment or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. EQT Prod. Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, No."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"85eee0f2-a9d9-43b3-8d65-8cb4847e4e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10180256-10180256","title":"CourtListener opinion 10180256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ses where a statute of limitations was missed, a plea offer was not conveyed, or where an attorney had a conflict of interest. By contrast, Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law. Thus, the necessity of expert testimony is dictated by the nature of the alleged malpractice. If the alleged negligence involves the exercise of legal judgment or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. EQT Prod. Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, No."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10196910 Extracted reporter citation: 766 F.3d 87. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10196910 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hed the. . . agreement in the way [plaintiff] insists that it did.\" 202 F.3d at 53.Thus, Plaintiff is seeking to enforce her rights under the Planas a beneficiary, which puts her claims directlywithin the scope ofERISA preemption.See29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). B. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Exemption Plaintiff argues in her opposition that her claims should survive because she is \"ask[ing] the Court to enforce her legal rights under Massachusetts domestic relations laws\"and not under the Plan.[ECF No. 14 at 4]. Plaintiff does not cite to a specific provision of the Massachusetts domestic relations laws as the source of her claim to the Acc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aws ch. 208, § 34, which grants the probate court the authority to assign to either spouse \"all or any part of the estate of the other, including... all vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage and which shall include. . .retirement benefits.\"3 ERISA provides an exception to preemptionfor orders that are deemed by the ERISA- governed plan administrator to be qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\").4 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7); seeBoggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)(\"QDRO's, unlike domestic relations orders in general, are exempt from . . . ERISA's general pre-emption clause.\").A dom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: emption clause.\").A domestic relations order is \"qualified\"when it meets certain statutory requirements and has been provided to the plan administrators for their evaluation and adetermination as to whether it is a QDRO. SeeTrs.of Dirs.Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 420 (9th Cir.),opinion amended on denial of reh'g,255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000) (\"Upon obtaining a 3 Plaintiff did not explain, either in the Complaint or in her opposition brief, what percentage of the Account, if any, was awarded to Plaintiff in the divorce proceedings. 4 Plaintiff didnot explicitly raise the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffe915e9-51e5-4582-97dc-6095bb2bb0e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10196910-10196910","title":"CourtListener opinion 10196910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 F.3d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: objection from Plaintiff, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1]. Defendants assertedthat Plaintiff, as abeneficiary of anemployee benefits plan controlled by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.(\"ERISA\"),alleged state law claims that were preempted by ERISA and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.Id.; see 28 U.S.C. §1331. II. STANDARDOF REVIEW On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts, analyze those facts in the light most hospitable to the plaintiff's theory, and draw al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10200666 Extracted case name: THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER SHEPPARD v. WILLIAM D. MCLAUGHLIN. Extracted reporter citation: 557 F.3d 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10200666 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: would name Wendy Sheppard as the sole beneficiary of his life insurance policies for as long any alimony obligations remained outstanding. Compl., Ex. 3 (Dkt # 1- 3) at 12. The Sheppards' agreement was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Some two years later, on August 31, 2017, Christopher Sheppard listed Wendy Sheppard on his IUOE Local 4 Census Card as his primary and sole life insurance beneficiary. Compl., Ex. 2 (Dkt # 1-2) at 3. He also checked off the 100% option for the percentage amount to be paid to his ex-wife. Id. Directly above the designated blank space for listing t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: & SAVINGS AND PENSION FUNDS; SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WENDY T. SHEPPARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS November 8, 2022 STEARNS, D.J. Debra Haslam brought this action against the trustees of her late brother's retirement benefits plan: William McLaughlin, David Shea, Jr., Paul Diminico, David Marr, Jr., Angelo Colasante, James Reger, Michael Bowes, Shane O'Neill, Michael Foley, and Christopher Fogarty (Fund Trustees); the administrator of the plan, Gregory Geiman; the insurer of the plan, Symetra Life Insurance Company (Symetra); and her late brother's ex- wife, Wendy Sheppard."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: L, MICHAEL M. FOLEY, and CHRISTOPHER T. FOGARTY, in their representative capacities as Trustees and GREGORY A. GEIMAN, in his capacity as the Administrator of the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 4 HEALTH & WELFARE, ANUUITY & SAVINGS AND PENSION FUNDS; SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WENDY T. SHEPPARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS November 8, 2022 STEARNS, D.J. Debra Haslam brought this action against the trustees of her late brother's retirement benefits plan: William McLaughlin, David Shea, Jr., Paul Diminico, David Marr, Jr., Angelo Colasante, James R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93b48cf9-71e4-4e1c-a118-710cd2e4d190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10200666-10200666","title":"CourtListener opinion 10200666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"557 F.3d 22","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ve of her late brother Christopher Sheppard's Estate. Prior to his death, Christopher Sheppard received retirement benefits from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 4 (IUOE Local 4) Health & Welfare, Annuity & Savings, and Pension Funds (ERISA Funds). The ERISA Funds were comprised of three smaller funds: (1) the Health & Welfare Fund; (2) the Annuity & Savings Fund; and (3) the Pension Fund. 1 The Complaint sets out nine Counts against the defendants in varying combinations: (1) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against all defendants; (2) violation of Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 50"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10201215 Extracted reporter citation: 950 F.2d 816. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10201215 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dress whether ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical to the one at issue here—avoided preemption as \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] under ERISA.\" Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *4 (quoting Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14). Having found that the AROs were applicable, the Phanor and Guilford courts next addressed the same question presented in this case: whether a life-insurance beneficiary change made during a divorce proceeding, in violation of an AR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: parties to a divorce. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 15. Michael G. Mabardy contends that Phanor and Guilford are inapposite because they concern life-insurance policies provided through plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). See id.; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *2. That fact, however, does not require a different result. The Phanor and Guilford courts did first address whether ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: her ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical to the one at issue here—avoided preemption as \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] under ERISA.\" Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *4 (quoting Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14). Having found that the AROs were applicable, the Phanor and Guilford courts next addressed the same question presented in this case: whether a life-insurance beneficiary change made during a divorce proceeding, in violation of an AR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a253c883-7cf6-45ae-8db6-907ed81bf5fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10201215-10201215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10201215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"950 F.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: 2008 WL 11511491, at *5. This Court agrees with that reasoning, and will follow it here. Michael G. Mabardy further contends that ARO enforcement would unfairly afford Hillary Mabardy the mutually exclusive advantages of being both a divorcing party and a surviving spouse. She was, in fact, a surviving spouse, as the divorce was not final; however, that fact is immaterial. This case involves a contract, and whether an attempted modification of that contract was lawful and enforceable. Michael S. Mabardy could have changed the beneficiary at any point before the ARO took effect, but did not. Instead, he violated the ARO t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10203904 Extracted reporter citation: 721 F.3d 241. Docket: 1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10203904 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: m any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(2). Title 19 of the Health-General Article in the Maryland Code gover"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ded, shall be exempt from any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankrup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aba154b7-a021-428f-ad80-61cb3ebe2122","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10203904-10203904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10203904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10207150 Extracted reporter citation: 669 F.3d 448. Docket: of months Stone was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10207150 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: perty Settlement Agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\"), which guaranteed that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's federal retirement benefits.1 ECF No. 12 at 37. Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, Lee was responsible for filing with OPM what is known as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), a necessary precondition to OPM awarding benefits to her as part of the divorce 1 The Settlement Agreement specified that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's self-only annuity based on the total number of months Stone was in the retirement plan during the marriage. ECF No. 12 at 36–38. settlement. ECF No. 12 at 37. In 2015, the Calvert County"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1 * * * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION The Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\") moves to dismiss the action commenced when the Circuit Court for Calvert County ordered the agency to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failure to issue retirement benefits consistent with court-ordered division of marital property. ECF No. 11. Finding no hearing necessary, see Loc. R. 105.6, and for the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. I. Background Heidi Lee and Elmer Stone were married in 1991 and divorced in 2015. ECF No. 12 at 30; 1-1 at 38–39. This was Elmer Stone's second marriage. See ECF No"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: afood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). Although the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), permits the matter to be in this Court, the Court's jurisdiction extends \"only as far as the state court's jurisdiction.\" L. Off. of Mark Kotlarsky Pension Plan v. Hillman, No. TDC-14-3028, 2015 WL 5021399, at *6 (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing Palmer v. City Nat'l Bank of W. Virginia, 498 F.3d 236, 244 (4th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, if the Calvert County Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction at the time of removal, so too does this Court. See Palmer, 498 F.3d at 244; see also Robinson v. Dep't of Justice, No. R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498c4cad-4ff6-45aa-82f9-89eea7aa1a3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10207150-10207150","title":"CourtListener opinion 10207150","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Stone was","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 F.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lement Agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\"), which guaranteed that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's federal retirement benefits.1 ECF No. 12 at 37. Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, Lee was responsible for filing with OPM what is known as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), a necessary precondition to OPM awarding benefits to her as part of the divorce 1 The Settlement Agreement specified that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's self-only annuity based on the total number of months Stone was in the retirement plan during the marriage. ECF No. 12 at 36–38. settlement. ECF No. 12 at 37. In 2015, the Calvert County"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10213309 Extracted reporter citation: 489 U.S. 101. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10213309 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ty-five years old and is currently single and living alone. She was married for thirty-nine years to Carl Zirbel (\"Zirbel\"), a former employee of Defendant's and a participant in the plan. Plaintiff and Zirbel were divorced in January 2009. (Dkt. 25-5.) A qualified domestic relations order for the plan was entered on February 6, 2009. (Dkt. 25-4.) Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was to receive fifty percent of the marital portion of Zirbel's total benefits both prior to and after his death. (Id. at PgID 931-32.) Plaintiff testified that she believed she would receive fifty percent of the marital portion of Zirbel's benefits during his li"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DONNA JEAN ZIRBEL, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 18-13212 v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds FORD MOTOR COMPANY, as Sponsor and Plan Administrator for the FORD MOTOR COMPANY GENERAL RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLAN ADMINSTRATOR AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS [25] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND ITS COUNTERCLAIMS [26] Pla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the district court,\" they \"requir[e] no deference to any administrator's action or decision\"). Rule 56 standards also apply to Defendant's counterclaim for the reimbursement of the overpayment of benefits. See, e.g., Longuski v. Iron Workers' Local No. 25 Pension Plan, No. 11-11595, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52177, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2012) (applying Rule 56 standards to a plan's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for reimbursement of overpayment of benefits). Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate if \"‘the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7864fea0-e571-421f-92fa-383f2f9f9f7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10213309-10213309","title":"CourtListener opinion 10213309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"489 U.S. 101","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: isputedly overpaid $243,189.70 in benefits by the Ford Motor Company General Retirement Plan (\"the plan\"), which is administered by Defendant Ford Motor Company (\"Defendant\"). She brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), in an attempt to avoid repayment of that amount. Defendant has filed a countersuit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), seeking recoupment of the overpaid benefits. The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for judgment to reverse the decision of the plan administrator and for summary judgment on Defendant's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10214009 Extracted case name: HON. TERRENCE G. BERG v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION KAIJA MENYON PACK. Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Docket: 26. But Pack later. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10214009 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: preceding the Participant's date of death in the case of benefits payable as a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity, as set forth in Section 6.1 A former Spouse will be treated as the Spouse or Surviving Spouse to the extent provided under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, as described in Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124. Accordingly, the terms of the pension plan provide that to comply with ERISA's \"clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents to determine the designated beneficiary,\" death benefits shall be awarded to Edwards's \"legal Surviving spouse.\" Metro. L"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROOFERS LOCAL 149 2:19-cv-10628 PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, HON. TERRENCE G. BERG v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION KAIJA MENYON PACK and FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIANA PERRY, Defendants. As a member of Roofers Local 149, Charles Edwards, Jr. left a monthly annuity benefit to his wife when he died. Unfortunately, because of irregularities in finalizing an earlier divorce, he also left a dispute"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: of the Fund. BACKGROUND The Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund (the \"Fund\") is established and administered pursuant to Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (\"LMRA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 186, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1971 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. According to the Fund's pension plan, the \"surviving spouse\" of a participant who dies before retirement is eligible to receive a monthly survivor annuity benefit.2 See ECF No. 20-2 (Excerpt from Am. and Restatement of Roofers Local No. 149 Pens. Plan). See also ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124 (supplying a definition of \"Spouse or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7912992a-f919-4a48-ad54-b1d9c4dd2a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10214009-10214009","title":"CourtListener opinion 10214009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26. But Pack later","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ng the Participant's date of death in the case of benefits payable as a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity, as set forth in Section 6.1 A former Spouse will be treated as the Spouse or Surviving Spouse to the extent provided under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, as described in Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124. Accordingly, the terms of the pension plan provide that to comply with ERISA's \"clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents to determine the designated beneficiary,\" death benefits shall be awarded to Edwards's \"legal Surviving spouse.\" Metro. L"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10217808 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 609. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10217808 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be \"changed or cancelled\" if the Perrones \"bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\" did] not prohibit cancellation of the surviving spouse coverage.\" [ECF No. 15-1, PageID.95]. The Perrones were married when Antonio Perrone made this election. Antonia was still married to Antonio Perrone when he retired from Ford in February 2004. However, they divorced in 2006. The Judgment of Divorce executed by Plaintiff and Mr. Perrone – and e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd her appeal. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge to the Administrative Record and Request for Limited Discovery. [ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge. II. BACKGROUND As a member of the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan (the \"Plan\"), Antonio Perrone elected survivor's benefits that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be \"changed or cancelled\" if the Perrones \"bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\" did] not prohibit cancellation of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge. II. BACKGROUND As a member of the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan (the \"Plan\"), Antonio Perrone elected survivor's benefits that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be \"changed or cancelled\" if the Perrones \"bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\" did] not prohibit cancellation of the surviving spouse coverage.\" [ECF No. 15-1, PageID.95]. The Perrones were married when Antonio Perrone made this electi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c25d15-a3bd-4c67-a8cc-828dca9da7c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10217808-10217808","title":"CourtListener opinion 10217808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"150 F.3d 609","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: RD OF ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ___________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND REQUEST FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY [ECF No. 15] I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Antonia Perrone brings this suit under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) for surviving spouse benefits. Defendant Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Board of Administration (the \"Board\") denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits and her appeal. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge to the Administrative Record and Request for Limited Discovery. [ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10219312 Extracted reporter citation: 643 F.3d 162. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10219312 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2. Both Clarke and Pilkington contributed to the account. Compl. ¶ 5. Clarke was married to Noel Anthony Clarke from October 22, 1996 until they divorced on December 22, 2004. Id. ¶ 6. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a Michigan state court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on January 20, 2006. Id. ¶ 8; Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 3. The QDRO required the proceeds of Clarke's 401(k) retirement account to be divided evenly between Clarke and her ex-husband. Compl. ¶ 9. Clarke alleges that on March 21, 2006, she \"received notification that [Pilkington] transferred a total of $30,631.50 to [her ex-husband].\" Id. ¶ 11."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on contained in the magistrate judge's R&R to grant Pilkington's motion to dismiss.1 I. BACKGROUND Clarke brings this action against Pilkington, her former employer, alleging that it breached its fiduciary duty by disbursing her employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement plan entirely to her ex- 1 Because oral argument will not aid the Court's decisional process, the issues will be decided based on the parties' briefing and the R&R. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). In addition to the motion to dismiss, the briefing for the motion includes Clarke's response (Dkt. 9) and Pilkington's reply (Dkt. 10). In a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tions to dismiss, a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds should be granted when the statement of the claim affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle [plaintiff] to relief.\" New Eng. Health Care Emps. Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2003) (punctuation modified). When one can determine from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run, dismissal is appropriate. Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 839 F.3d 458, 464 (6th Cir. 2016). The Court is required to \"construe the complaint in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4157379-8845-4e74-8aba-b88df718287b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10219312-10219312","title":"CourtListener opinion 10219312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"643 F.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: hat Pilkington paid the account funds to her ex-husband in breach of its fiduciary duties to her under the plan. Pilkington removed the case to this Court, asserting that Clarke's claim is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, which Clarke did not challenge. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1). Pilkington then filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues that, based on any reading of the allegations, Clarke's claim is time- barred under ERISA. Mot. to Dismiss at 3–10. The magistrate judge found that Clarke's claim is ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10220518 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10220518 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: surance proceeds because ERISA preempts state law and she was the named beneficiary. (See ECF No. 24, PageID.332–334.) She also argues that there is no exemption to ERISA preemption because the divorce decree is not a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). (Id.) Periyasamy disagrees. (ECF No. 27, PageID.458–461.) As the R&R explained, ERISA is the federal statute that governs employee benefit welfare plans. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Under ERISA, federal law must supersede all state laws which \"relate to\" an ERISA plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). And \"[t]he designation of beneficiaries plainly r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Co., 95 F. App'x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 526 (6th Cir. 2002)). III. Analysis In her summary judgment motion, Subramaniam argues that she is entitled to the decedent's life insurance proceeds because ERISA preempts state law and she was the named beneficiary. (See ECF No. 24, PageID.332–334.) She also argues that there is no exemption to ERISA preemption because the divorce decree is not a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). (Id.) Periyasamy disagrees. (ECF No. 27, PageID.458–461.) As the R&R explained, ERISA is the federal statute that go"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ir. 2005). To qualify as a QDRO, the divorce decree must meet the requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 395 F. Supp. 3d 886, 890 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Among other requirements, the divorce decree must identify an alternate payee who would \"receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Both Periyasamy and Subramaniam agree that the divorce decree lacks the requisite information and is not a QDRO. ECF No. 20, PageID.266; ECF No. 21, PageID.295. Thus, the divorce decree is not exempt from pree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a8d7b8c-bb28-4939-b46d-e56e60feb670","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10220518-10220518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10220518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1990), on reh'g, 922 F.2d 841 (6th Cir. 1990). Generally, divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt, but a divorce decree that constitutes a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1144(a), 1056(d)(3)(A); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir. 2005). To qualify as a QDRO, the divorce decree must meet the requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 395 F. Supp. 3d 886, 890 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Among other r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10227696 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: Nos. 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10227696 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ntsman would pay spousal maintenance, and also specifically provided that a portion of Mr. Huntsman's pension benefit in the Defendant 3M Employee Retirement Income Plan (\"ERIP\") would go to Mrs. Huntsman. To that end, the Washington County court issued a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA, directing Defendant 3M Plan Administrator1 regarding the division of the pension benefit. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii) (procedures for qualification of domestic relations orders under ERISA). Mr. Huntsman began receiving his monthly pension benefit of $3,259.09 in 2007. Shortly thereafter, he moved the Washington County court to red"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e state courts have already ruled on Mr. Huntsman's claim that the direct payments to Mrs. Huntsman violate state and federal wage and garnishment laws, see id. at *8 (rejecting as raised for the first time on appeal Mr. Huntsman's argument that use of his retirement account to satisfy maintenance obligations violates federal and state wage and garnishment laws), and have determined that the state court was within its authority to order the payment of Mrs. Huntsman's attorney's fees from the pension payments. See id. at *9 (affirming district court's attorney's fees award to Mrs. Huntsman). Preclusion principles bar Mr. Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: an, dissolved their 31-year marriage. He has brought no fewer than 18 state-court appeals over the past 19 years, at least one of which is still pending. This lawsuit seeks to force his former employer, Defendant 3M Company, to stop giving a portion of his pension proceeds to his ex-wife. Indeed, Mr. Huntsman is a restricted filer in state court because of how often he has challenged the property divisions from the divorce. Huntsman v. Huntsman, No. A12- 2147, 2013 WL 5777908, at *8 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2013); see also Huntsman v. Huntsman, No. A19-40, 2019 WL 3293806, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019) (\"I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1282af76-0733-4c26-b947-115940f84aa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10227696-10227696","title":"CourtListener opinion 10227696","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Nos. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: also specifically provided that a portion of Mr. Huntsman's pension benefit in the Defendant 3M Employee Retirement Income Plan (\"ERIP\") would go to Mrs. Huntsman. To that end, the Washington County court issued a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA, directing Defendant 3M Plan Administrator1 regarding the division of the pension benefit. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii) (procedures for qualification of domestic relations orders under ERISA). Mr. Huntsman began receiving his monthly pension benefit of $3,259.09 in 2007. Shortly thereafter, he moved the Washington County court to reduce his spou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10230230 Extracted reporter citation: 588 F.3d 585. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10230230 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ally provided to a defined contribution plan by the plan's ‘recordkeeper,'\" and that \"[n]early all recordkeepers in the marketplace offer the same range of services.\" Compl. ¶ 60. The Complaint identifies \"managed account services, self-directed brokerage, Qualified Domestic Relations Order processing, and loan processing\" as generic examples of these services. Id. Participant-disclosure forms filed by Defendants in support of their motion (and embraced by the pleadings, Matousek, 51 F.4th at 279) seem to show that the Plan's recordkeeper, Merrill Lynch, processed participants' investment directives, kept track of participant accounts and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: just alleging that ‘costs are too high, or returns are too low.'\" Matousek, 51 F.4th at 278 (quoting Davis, 960 F.3d at 484). II2 The Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing plan. In a defined contribution plan, \"participants' retirement benefits are limited to the value of their own individual investment accounts, which is determined by the market performance of employee and employer contributions, less expenses.\" Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 575 U.S. 523, 525 (2015). Here, Plan participants may contribute to their individual accounts, and Taylor Corporation contributes via matching contributions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nts. Plaintiffs claim that their former employer, Taylor Corporation, its Board of Directors, Fiduciary Investment Committee, and every individual who served as a director or Fiduciary Investment Committee member during the relevant period,1 all violated ERISA by mismanaging the corporation's defined-contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing 1 Plaintiffs allege that the relevant \"Class Period\" starts February 14, 2016, and runs through the entry of any final judgment in this case. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1 n.2. plan (the \"Plan\"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a24b7b1-3b16-4335-8638-5ffec6ae0918","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10230230-10230230","title":"CourtListener opinion 10230230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 585","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): orporation, its Board of Directors, Fiduciary Investment Committee, and every individual who served as a director or Fiduciary Investment Committee member during the relevant period,1 all violated ERISA by mismanaging the corporation's defined-contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing 1 Plaintiffs allege that the relevant \"Class Period\" starts February 14, 2016, and runs through the entry of any final judgment in this case. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1 n.2. plan (the \"Plan\"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably high recordkeeping fees, allowing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10233414 Extracted reporter citation: 863 F.2d 33. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10233414 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: At retirement, Plaintiff elected the Single-Life Annuity/36- month Guarantee, Level Income Option pension, which provides a higher benefit until age 62 or 65 (the participant's choice,) at which point the benefit is reduced. At retirement, Plaintiff had two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") in favor of his two ex-spouses that the Trust was required to account for in determining the amount of the Plaintiff's monthly pension benefit. On July 20, 2011, then-Pension Coordinator Alicia Schonaerts-Difani, on behalf of the Trust, informed Plaintiff that he would be receiving a monthly pension benefit of $3,432.00 per month, which wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s employer's erroneous written statement of what his early retirement benefits would be\" an estoppel claim is \"not actionable where the plaintiff had failed to establish that the estoppel would merely hold his employer to a plausible interpretation of the retirement plan, rather than a modification of the plan.\" Slice, 34 F.3d at 635 (citing Law v. Ernst & Young, 956 F.2d 364, 367–68 (1st Cir.1992)). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any plausible interpretation of the Trust that would allow it to pay him a benefit without the proper early retirement and QDRO adjustments. Rather, the Plan Document plainly sets out the ea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Univ. of Arkansas Bd. of Trustees, 863 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2017). Defendants' facts are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.01(E). The undisputed facts are as follows: Construction Laborers' Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis (\"the Trust\") is a Taft-Hartley employee benefit plan that is jointly administered by a Board of Trustees comprised of six union-appointed trustees and six employer-appointed trustees. Defendants Gary Elliott, Don Willey, David Gillick, and William L. Luth are four of the Trustees of the Trust. Jeanette Scopino (\"Scopino\") is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13831bb1-319e-4da4-ac20-17fc0796f075","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233414-10233414","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233414","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"863 F.2d 33","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: iott, Don Willey, David Gillick, and William L. Luth are four of the Trustees of the Trust. Jeanette Scopino (\"Scopino\") is the Pension Director of the Trust. The Trust is an employee benefit plan as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., and is subject to that Act. The Trust is financed by contributions from employers who are signatory to collective bargaining agreements with Laborers Locals 42 and 110 and the Eastern Missouri Laborers' District Council. Signatory employers make contributions to the Trust for each hour of work performed by an emplo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b10903-9e0a-48a1-bac4-5813981d8ed5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233730","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number as a conjoined proceeding","extracted_reporter_citation":"478 F.2d 719","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10233730 Extracted reporter citation: 478 F.2d 719. Docket: number as a conjoined proceeding. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10233730 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b10903-9e0a-48a1-bac4-5813981d8ed5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233730","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number as a conjoined proceeding","extracted_reporter_citation":"478 F.2d 719","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b10903-9e0a-48a1-bac4-5813981d8ed5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233730","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number as a conjoined proceeding","extracted_reporter_citation":"478 F.2d 719","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Agreement (\"Agreement\"), and the circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution awarding Lorraine child support and a portion of Steven's pension benefits. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. On August 24, 2016, Defendants submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to the divorce court, which assigned Lorraine 100% of Steven's lump sum benefit amount and monthly annuity benefits. Id. ¶ 19. The QDRO similarly awarded Lorraine 100% of the Braziles' marital home on Vienna Avenue (the \"Vienna property\"). Id. ¶ 20. In this case, the Government alleges that the state court judgment awarded Lorraine all the marital a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b10903-9e0a-48a1-bac4-5813981d8ed5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10233730-10233730","title":"CourtListener opinion 10233730","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number as a conjoined proceeding","extracted_reporter_citation":"478 F.2d 719","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 25, 2013. Id. ¶ 16. On August 29, 2013, Defendants entered into a voluntary Property Settlement and Separation Agreement (\"Agreement\"), and the circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution awarding Lorraine child support and a portion of Steven's pension benefits. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. On August 24, 2016, Defendants submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to the divorce court, which assigned Lorraine 100% of Steven's lump sum benefit amount and monthly annuity benefits. Id. ¶ 19. The QDRO similarly awarded Lorraine 100% of the Braziles' marital home on Vienna Avenue (the \"Vienna property\"). Id."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10241105 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10241105 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the state court entered 1 The underlying facts are not entirely clear from the documents filed in this case. The following attempts to glean the relevant facts from those documents. All page numbers are those generated by the Court's CM/ECF system. a 2004 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\").2 (Id.) The QDRO directed how pension benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan would be distributed between the Hoots. (Id.) As of December 2003, the benefits at issue were valued at $25,092.00. (Id., p. 2.) On February 23, 2018, and with leave of the state court, Mr. Hoot filed an Amended Motion to Modify Amended Judgment of Dissolutio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION KELLY LYNN HOOT, ) ) Petitioner/Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 19-03068-CV-S-BP ) RONALD EDWARD HOOT, ) ) Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ORDER AND OPINION DENYING THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF RONALD HOOT'S MOTION TO REMAND This lawsuit, originally filed in state court, was removed to federal court by Third-Party Defendant AT&T Pension Benefit Plan (the \"Plan\") on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Third-Party Plaintiff Ronald Hoot (\"M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: lan removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Although Mr. Hoot's motion does not expressly state a federal claim, the Notice of Removal argues that removal is proper because \"ERISA completely preempts state law claims that concern the administration of a benefit plan governed by ERISA or seek recovery of benefits under an ERISA-governed Plan.\" (Doc. 1, p. 4 (citing cases)). On March 6, 2019, Mr. Hoot filed the pending motion to remand. (Doc. 8.) The motion does not argue a lack of federal question jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Hoot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3bb139fb-45c8-4dd5-827f-d8a2cc595e4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10241105-10241105","title":"CourtListener opinion 10241105","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court entered 1 The underlying facts are not entirely clear from the documents filed in this case. The following attempts to glean the relevant facts from those documents. All page numbers are those generated by the Court's CM/ECF system. a 2004 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\").2 (Id.) The QDRO directed how pension benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan would be distributed between the Hoots. (Id.) As of December 2003, the benefits at issue were valued at $25,092.00. (Id., p. 2.) On February 23, 2018, and with leave of the state court, Mr. Hoot filed an Amended Motion to Modify Amended Judgment of Dissolutio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10260965 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10260965 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in 2010. (Id.) ERISA allows a participant's benefit under a pension plan to be assigned pursuant to a \"domestic relations order\" issued and approved by the family law court once the domestic relations order is determined, by the plan administrator, to be a qualified domestic relations order. Plaintiff's interest in the Plan was included in the equitable distribution of marital assets. (Id.) On February 26, 2013, the family court issued a domestic relations order dividing Plaintiff's pension benefit under the Plan between him and his then-wife, \"the alternate payee\". (Doc. No. 1, p. 5.) The domestic relations order indicated \"[t]he Altern"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN, CORTEVA, INC., and ) THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 7). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. I. BAC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN, CORTEVA, INC., and ) THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 7). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"589bbe1b-ff0f-4270-b1d2-5941de54c7b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10260965-10260965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10260965","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint with this Court on August 14, 2023, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") against Defendants EIDP, Inc., formerly known as E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Corteva, Inc.; the Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Benefit Plans Administrative Committee. (Doc. No. 1.) A summary of the facts alleged in the Complaint is as follows: Plaintiff began his employment with EIDP on February 1, 1984, and began participating and accr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10262507 Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10262507 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the Long-Term Savings Plan to the RSP. See Mutual of Omaha Long-Term Savings Plan, Form 5500 (2018), available at www.efast.dol.gov. 2 Capitalized terms in this Order will have the same meaning and definition as in the Settlement Agreement. subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and/or IMOC during the Class Period. Id. at § 2.9. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n1 (together, the \"Plans\") against defendants Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (\"Mutual of Omaha\"), its wholly-owned subsidiary United of Omaha Insurance Company (\"United\") and the individual \"John Doe\" defendants who are current or former members of the Retirement Plans Administration Committee (\"Administration Committee\"), the Retirement Plans Investment Committee (\"Investment Committee\") and/or the Investment Manager Oversight Committee (\"IMOC\") (collectively referred to as \"Mutual\" or \"Defendants\"). Mutual and the named plaintiffs have entered into the Settlement Agreement to resolve all claims asserted in this E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: yet exist. Effective January 1, 2019, the Long-Term Savings Plan was split into two plans with the split determined on whether participants were active participants in or excluded from the Mutual of Omaha Retirement Income Plan (\"MORIP\"), a defined benefit pension plan. Participants eligible for the MORIP remained in the Long-Term Savings Plan while non-eligible participants were transferred to the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (\"RSP\"), a new defined contribution plan established by Mutual. Effective January 16, 2019, Long-Term Savings Plan investments in the amount of $339,231,855 were transferre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b193aba3-95cc-4740-b59c-65a0e49fdd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262507-10262507","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262507","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement and for certification of the proposed settlement class, Filing No. 101. This is a purported class action for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Tamera S. Lechner, Regina K. White and Steven D. Gifford (collectively, \"Plaintiffs\" or \"Named Plaintiffs\"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan1 (the \"Pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10262794 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10262794 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: eptember 18, 2020, Filing No. 101-2, Ex. A (hereinafter, the \"Settlement Agreement\") and on the plaintiffs' application for an award of attorney fees, Filing No. 105. This is an action for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and personal jurisdiction over all parties to the action, including all members of the settlement Class. The Court held a fairness hearing on the motion on February 1, 2021. Class counsel and counsel for the defendants appeared at the hearing by videoconferenc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA TAMERA S. LECHNER, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long- Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a class 8:18CV22 of all those similarly situated; REGINA K. WHITE, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated; and STEVEN D. GIFFORD, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and FINA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: gs Plans and the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plans (the \"Plans\") at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and/or Alternate Payee, in the case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class period. Excluded from this Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and IMOC during the Class Period. See Fili"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9b3bf9c-3700-41db-a718-f5ae6cbea8ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10262794-10262794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10262794","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: (the \"Plans\") at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and/or Alternate Payee, in the case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class period. Excluded from this Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and IMOC during the Class Period. See Filing No. 102, Memorandum and Order. In accordance with the Court's orders,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0cfb06-1032-4187-a608-e0348709bd09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305","title":"CourtListener opinion 10267305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 800","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10267305 Extracted reporter citation: 424 U.S. 800. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10267305 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0cfb06-1032-4187-a608-e0348709bd09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305","title":"CourtListener opinion 10267305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 800","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0cfb06-1032-4187-a608-e0348709bd09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305","title":"CourtListener opinion 10267305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 800","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ederal Rights): It is not clear that the state courts are adequate because the Probate Court likely does not have jurisdiction over the life insurance policies, which are non-probate assets, and ERISA preempts the MSA unless it meets the definition of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"\"ODRO\"), which it does not. (/d. at 11-12.) This factor weighs against abstention. (/d. at 12.) Factor 7 (Forum Shopping): The federal action was filed first, and Cari and William have ignored the deadlines to answer, instead \"furiously filing motions in state court in an effort to manufacture\" parallel proceedings. (/d.) Abstention would encourag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0cfb06-1032-4187-a608-e0348709bd09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305","title":"CourtListener opinion 10267305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 800","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: plan was maintained by one of the Decedent's former employers, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (\"PwC\"), KPMG LLP, and Ernst & Young LLP (\"E&Y\"). (Id. Jf 9, 14, 22.) The KPMG and PwC plans are purportedly governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). (Ud. [ff 16, 24; Mem. in Support of Mot. to Stay 2, ECF No. 21-1.) On June 7, 2018, the designated beneficiary of each plan was changed to Dena, the Decedent's wife. (MetLife's Am. Compl. {J 2, 12, 20, 28.) Before that, the beneficiary of the PwC plan was William, the Decedent's brother; the beneficiary of the KPMG plan was Cari, the Decedent's ex-wif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0cfb06-1032-4187-a608-e0348709bd09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10267305-10267305","title":"CourtListener opinion 10267305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 800","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hts): It is not clear that the state courts are adequate because the Probate Court likely does not have jurisdiction over the life insurance policies, which are non-probate assets, and ERISA preempts the MSA unless it meets the definition of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"\"ODRO\"), which it does not. (/d. at 11-12.) This factor weighs against abstention. (/d. at 12.) Factor 7 (Forum Shopping): The federal action was filed first, and Cari and William have ignored the deadlines to answer, instead \"furiously filing motions in state court in an effort to manufacture\" parallel proceedings. (/d.) Abstention would encourag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb193142-c44c-4956-915e-09773231c01e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245","title":"CourtListener opinion 10279245","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8 in this regard. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10279245 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 8 in this regard. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10279245 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb193142-c44c-4956-915e-09773231c01e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245","title":"CourtListener opinion 10279245","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8 in this regard. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb193142-c44c-4956-915e-09773231c01e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245","title":"CourtListener opinion 10279245","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8 in this regard. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n file a motion that explains why there is good cause to limit access to certain specific documents.\" Trading Techs., Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 10 C 715, 2011 WL 1547769, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2011); see also Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Mississippi Warehouse Corp., 853 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (\"[I]t would be unusual if one co-defendant . . . could view the documents that the other co-defendant . . . could not.\"). \"Limiting access by [a defendant] to documents designated as confidential by [another party] . . . is unnecessary in light of the safeguards\" a protective"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb193142-c44c-4956-915e-09773231c01e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10279245-10279245","title":"CourtListener opinion 10279245","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8 in this regard. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rms NMLA should use to find them, no later than Friday, December 6, 2019. g. With respect to Request No. 8, Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel NMLA to produce the client file regarding the client for whom Plaintiff was instructed to draft a qualified domestic relations order, the execution of which allegedly contributed to NMLA's decision to discharge Plaintiff. NMLA, in turn, asks the Court to direct it how to protect the client's confidentiality rights in responding to Request No. 8 in this regard. The Court directs NMLA to produce Plaintiff's timesheets regarding the client file at issue. In addition, the Court directs"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10286232 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McFarland. Extracted reporter citation: 71 S.W.3d 529. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10286232 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: defined-contribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS.\" Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981)). We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698. A trial court \"enjoys wide latitude in dividing the marital estate,\" and we \"presume that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: value of the home at the time of trial was $300,000. According to Steve, the balance on the mortgage was $219,187.60, which resulted in $80,000 of equity in the home. Alma testified that the assessed value of the home was $264,110. Alma testified she had a retirement account in the amount of $6,168.78. She testified the value of the assets of the marital estate was $192,808.14, which included equity in the house, equity in the vehicles, and the value of the TSP and Alma's retirement account. She testified the total debts of the marital estate were $39,717.26. Steve testified he completed high school and three years of coll"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 7) the size of the separate estates; (8) the nature of the property; and (9) the disparity of income or earning capacity. Kaftousian v. Rezaeipanah, 511 S.W.3d 618, 621-22 (Tex. App.—El 1 \"The Thrift Savings Plan is a defined-contribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS.\" Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Mur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1edcdb04-d442-4398-9012-7fbd8268ba4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10286232-10286232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10286232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"71 S.W.3d 529","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS.\" Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981)). We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698. A trial court \"enjoys wide latitude in dividing the marital estate,\" and we \"presume that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10287389 Extracted reporter citation: 559 F.2d 557. Docket: 7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10287389 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e to the Internal Revenue Service while he 24 was actually married, presumably for additional financial gain. 25 14. After paying Dunlap these pension benefits for nearly ten years, the Plan was 26 presented with a request for information regarding a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 27 1 (\"QDRO\"). It was then that the Plan realized that Dunlap was not single, but married, and had 2 been married since 1998, despite the fraudulent statements on his pension application. 3 15. Due to fraudulent information included on his application, the Plan paid Dunlap an 4 amount to which Dunlap was not entitled. 5 16. The Plan's terms state that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s.com 6 Email: bcloveland@bhfs.com 7 Email: chumes@bhfs.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 2:18-cv-02163-JAD-VCF 12 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST 13 FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; THE 14 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST and Entering Final Judgment 15 FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA, [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT 16 JUDGMENT vs. 17 18 REGINALD DUNLAP, an individual, ECF No. 7 19 Defendant. 20 Before t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Pension Trust for Southern Nevada and the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension 4 Trust for Southern Nevada. 5 2. The Board of Trustees is made up of fiduciaries of the Plan for purposes of the 6 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). 7 3. The Plan is an employee benefit plan as defined in ERISA. 8 4. The Defendant Reginald Dunlap is an individual who is a resident of the State of 9 Nevada. 10 5. Dunlap was a Participant in the Plan accruing pension benefits to his account. 11 6. Dunlap applied for payment of pension benefits from the Plan in December 2007. 12 7. The Plan offers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8775f39c-ba80-4d06-98b1-6266a2041aba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10287389-10287389","title":"CourtListener opinion 10287389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 F.2d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Trust Funds will suffer prejudice if 15 default judgment is not entered because they \"‘will likely be without other recourse for recovery' 16 if default judgment is not entered in their favor.\" Tr. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers 17 Local 13 Defined Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tile Concepts, Inc., No. 2:16-cv- 18 01067-GMN-GWF, 2016 WL 8077987 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016) (quoting Liberty Ins. 19 Underwriters, Inc. v. Scudier, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1318 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013)). Dunlap 20 fraudulently obtained pension benefits contradictory to the Plan's terms and ERISA. Dunlap has 21 refused to pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10288978 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Docket: 1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10288978 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: C Corp. v. Holliday, 17 498 U.S. 52, 58–59 (1990) (ERISA preempting Pennsylvania's subrogation law related to an 18 ERISA-governed insurance plan), Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1062 (ERISA 19 preempting a Nevada constructive trust intended to avoid a qualified domestic relations order 20 enforceable under ERISA), with Travelers, 514 U.S. at 661 (ERISA did not preempt New York 21 statute requiring hospitals to collect surcharges from commercial insurers because the statute 22 shared too tenuous a relationship to ERISA-governed plans), Dishman, 269 F.3d at 983 (ERISA 23 did not preempt California tort for unreasonably intrusive investi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o 14 which Roy Lohrengel responded (ECF No. 45), and Pompa replied (ECF No. 46). In this 15 interpleader action, Dish Network asks the Court to determine whether Debra Pompa or Roy 16 Lohrengel is entitled to non-party Larry Lohrengel's Dish Network 401(k) retirement account. 17 Larry Lohrengel passed away on July 25, 2012. Before Larry's death, Debra Pompa became 18 beneficiary to Larry's Dish Network retirement account, which was governed by the Employee 19 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). As the sole beneficiary, Pompa believed 20 herself to be entitled to 100% of the plan proceeds. Larry's father, and i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: k 401(k) retirement account. 17 Larry Lohrengel passed away on July 25, 2012. Before Larry's death, Debra Pompa became 18 beneficiary to Larry's Dish Network retirement account, which was governed by the Employee 19 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). As the sole beneficiary, Pompa believed 20 herself to be entitled to 100% of the plan proceeds. Larry's father, and interpleaded defendant 21 Roy Lohrengel, claims that Pompa's beneficiary designation is void under NRS § 155.097 22 because Pompa qualified as Larry's caregiver and was therefore not entitled to become his 23 beneficiary. Roy also claim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0a38965-389f-4760-9038-3cc199b61a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10288978-10288978","title":"CourtListener opinion 10288978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, as Plan Case No. 2:17-cv-1601-KJD-CWH Administrator and on behalf of DISH 8 NETWORK CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN, ORDER 9 Plaintiff in Interpleader, 10 v. 11 DEBRA POMPA and ROY LOHRENGEL, 12 Defendants/Crossclaimants in Interpleader. 13 Before the Court is Debra Jean Pompa's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) to 14 which Roy Lohrengel responded (ECF No. 45), and Pompa replied (ECF No. 46). In this 15 interpleader action, Dish Network asks the C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75d4b56-ca62-4153-81bd-2a2ff94078d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845","title":"CourtListener opinion 10316845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number 19-CV- 3859","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10316845 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: number 19-CV- 3859. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10316845 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75d4b56-ca62-4153-81bd-2a2ff94078d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845","title":"CourtListener opinion 10316845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number 19-CV- 3859","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75d4b56-ca62-4153-81bd-2a2ff94078d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10316845-10316845","title":"CourtListener opinion 10316845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number 19-CV- 3859","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: matrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in state courts.\"); Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354-55 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (\"Plaintiff asks the Court to ‘undo' the domestic relations orders issued by the state courts, . . . However, under the domestic relations exception, this Court cannot and will not provide the relief Plaintiff seeks.\"). And \"[w]hile the domestic relation exception itself is narrow, it applies generally to issues relating to the custody of minors.\" Mitchell-Angel, No. 95-7937, at *2 (internal citations omitted) (citing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ea9ef-02e2-4c40-bc6e-c3e0b7e0cd37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275","title":"CourtListener opinion 10318275","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and note service on the docket. Plaintiff has conse","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10318275 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: and note service on the docket. Plaintiff has conse. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10318275 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ea9ef-02e2-4c40-bc6e-c3e0b7e0cd37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275","title":"CourtListener opinion 10318275","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and note service on the docket. Plaintiff has conse","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ea9ef-02e2-4c40-bc6e-c3e0b7e0cd37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10318275-10318275","title":"CourtListener opinion 10318275","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and note service on the docket. Plaintiff has conse","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: atrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in state courts.\"); Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354-55 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (\"Plaintiff asks the Court to ‘undo' the domestic relations orders issued by the state courts, . . . However, under the domestic relations exception, this Court cannot and will not provide the relief Plaintiff seeks.\"). And \"[w]hile the domestic relation exception itself is narrow, it applies generally to issues relating to the custody of minors.\" Mitchell-Angel, No. 95-7937, at *2 (internal citations omitted) (citin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10319152 Extracted reporter citation: 927 F.3d 81. Docket: Number 29. Dated: December 5. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10319152 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: udgment of Divorce, dated March 13, 2009, provided that the Plan at issue \"shall be divided equally, fifty (50%) percent each between the parties\" and that \"[t]he parties shall facilitate such QDROs as required to accomplish the division of\" the assets. A QDRO is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(3)(B)(i).1 A QDRO was issued on December 23, 2015, by the Bronx County Supreme Court, which \"assigns to the Alternate Payee [Plaintiff] an amount equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the Participant's [Defendant Adelsberg's] vested accrued benefit under the Plan as of December 7, 2006.\" On the s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnn nnn nena nnn oon nn nnn no nnn ------- XK DATE FILED:_12/5/2019 KENNETH AMRON, : Plaintiff, : : 18 Civ. 11336 (LGS) -against- : : OPINION AND ORDER YARDAIN INC. PENSION PLAN, et al., : Defendants. : LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: Plaintiff Kenneth Amron brings this action against Defendants Yardain Inc. Pension Plan (the \"Plan\"), Yardain Inc. (the \"Company\"') and Sandra Adelsberg, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: : Plaintiff Kenneth Amron brings this action against Defendants Yardain Inc. Pension Plan (the \"Plan\"), Yardain Inc. (the \"Company\"') and Sandra Adelsberg, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the \"Complaint') pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the Complaint, documents appended to or referenced in the Complaint, and ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2769f99-3497-46ea-bc6f-411597bed09d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10319152-10319152","title":"CourtListener opinion 10319152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number 29. Dated: December 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.3d 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hat [a] Marital Right to a benefit accrued under the Plan ceases\" is December 7, 2006, when Defendant Adelsberg filed for divorce. As noted above, the Plan is a defined benefit plan in which Defendant Adelsberg was fully vested by December 2006, and not a defined contribution plan where the benefit grows as vested after 6 years of service). If Defendant Adelsberg was not fully vested in the Plan in 2006, pursuant to the QDRO Plaintiff would not share in any increase in value due to Defendant Adelsberg's subsequent years of benefit service. additional amounts are contributed each year of employment. Therefore, no reduction,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10321610 Extracted case name: LLC v. GKO. Extracted reporter citation: 861 F. Supp. 2d 262. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321610 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: use of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary. Christine Waldbaum, Mr. Waldbaum's former spouse, contends that his Plan account has been assigned to her pursuant to a \"qualified domestic relations order\" issued by a New Jersey state court. This Court previously denied Ren's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Ren has moved for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 52) Christine Waldbaum has moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 59) For the reasons set forth below, Ren's motion for reconsideration will be denied, and Christine Waldbaum's motion fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan brings this interpleader action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to resolve competing claims to a 401(k) account. Maxim Waldbaum is a participant in the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the \"Plan\"). Defendant Yunling Ren, the current spouse of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EATON & VAN WINKLE, LLP, as the Plan Administrator of the EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(k) PROFIT SHARING ORDER PLAN, Plaintiff, 17 Civ. 6118 (PGG) -against- YUNLING REN and CHRISTINE WALDBAUM, Defendants. YUNLING REN, Plaintiff, -against- 17 Civ. 1535 (PGG) THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f032d0e-8bf9-4668-b445-460e5836e486","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321610-10321610","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: tment of NJ Superior Court's Order as [a] QDRO.\" (Id.) In the March 26, 2019 Order, this Court held that, \"pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(G)-Gi), the New Jersey Superior Court was authorized to award Mr. Waldbaum's 401(k) Plan account to an alternate payee such as Defendant Waldbaum.\" (March 26, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 49) at 14) As discussed above, Nicholls demonstrates that a \"qualified domestic relations order\" can affect a third-party's unmatured interest in a 401(k) account. Ren's arguments to the contrary were rejected in the March 26, 2019 Order. (Id. at 14, 18) Ren also complains that this Court \"va"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10321613 Extracted case name: LLC v. GKO. Extracted reporter citation: 861 F. Supp. 2d 262. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: use of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary. Christine Waldbaum, Mr. Waldbaum's former spouse, contends that his Plan account has been assigned to her pursuant to a \"qualified domestic relations order\" issued by a New Jersey state court. This Court previously denied Ren's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Ren has moved for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 52) Christine Waldbaum has moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 59) For the reasons set forth below, Ren's motion for reconsideration will be denied, and Christine Waldbaum's motion fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan brings this interpleader action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to resolve competing claims to a 401(k) account. Maxim Waldbaum is a participant in the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the \"Plan\"). Defendant Yunling Ren, the current spouse of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EATON & VAN WINKLE, LLP, as the Plan Administrator of the EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(k) PROFIT SHARING ORDER PLAN, Plaintiff, 17 Civ. 6118 (PGG) -against- YUNLING REN and CHRISTINE WALDBAUM, Defendants. YUNLING REN, Plaintiff, -against- 17 Civ. 1535 (PGG) THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cc9aa42-d5f1-4dbf-85f8-ed7b5cc3ca09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321613-10321613","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"861 F. Supp. 2d 262","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: tment of NJ Superior Court's Order as [a] QDRO.\" (Id.) In the March 26, 2019 Order, this Court held that, \"pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(G)-Gi), the New Jersey Superior Court was authorized to award Mr. Waldbaum's 401(k) Plan account to an alternate payee such as Defendant Waldbaum.\" (March 26, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 49) at 14) As discussed above, Nicholls demonstrates that a \"qualified domestic relations order\" can affect a third-party's unmatured interest in a 401(k) account. Ren's arguments to the contrary were rejected in the March 26, 2019 Order. (Id. at 14, 18) Ren also complains that this Court \"va"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10321839 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321839 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Fort Dearborn Life Ins. Co. v. Uebler-Otoka, No. 07CV771C, 2010 WL 11549445, at *2–3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2010) (concluding that an automatic order in a divorce action where a party died prior to the entry of a final judgment of divorce did not constitute a qualified domestic relations order because it became moot upon the decedent's death). The Court must next consider whether Mary-Anne had the authority to make beneficiary designation changes. As indicated above, on February 26, 2016, Mary-Anne was appointed power of attorney for Daniel. Following Daniel's stroke, for several weeks, Mary-Anne communicated with Bloomberg regarding issue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d cause of action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the beneficiary designation are null and void based on Mary-Anne's lack of authority is dismissed. according to ordinary principles of contract law.\" Latronica v. Local 1430 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Pension Fund, No. 17-CV-00550 (NSR), 2019 WL 3997989, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2019) (quoting CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761, 763 (2018)). Accordingly, the Court must first determine whether the language of the Plan Document and Certificate of Insurance is ambiguous such that \"it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reaso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: DISCUSSION I. Beneficiary Designation Change Where, as here, an employee benefit plan grants a plan administrator discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan, a district court must deferentially review a denial of benefits challenged under ERISA. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bitch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, (1989). The court may reverse the denial only if the administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious, that is, \"without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.\" Zervos v. Verizon New York Inc., 277 F.3d 635, 646 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd28b056-fb4f-4b87-8d7b-75c3cd7fb08c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10321839-10321839","title":"CourtListener opinion 10321839","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): attorney on February 23, 2016, which is the date it became effective. Ent. Defs.' R. 56.1 Smt. ⁋18. Early in October of 2016, Daniel suffered a stroke. Ind. Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ⁋ 24. Shortly thereafter, on October 26, 2016, Bloomberg's administrator for 401(k) benefits, Empower, submitted the power of attorney to Bloomberg for review. Ent. Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ⁋ 20. In part, the purpose of the review was for Bloomberg to determine whether restrictions on the attorney- in-fact applied to the management of Daniel's 401(k) benefits. Id. ⁋ 21. On October 31, 2016, in a conversation between Bloomberg's representat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1033631 Extracted reporter citation: 646 F.3d 504. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1033631 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: separate non-marital property of the party who is the participant or owner of the benefit or account (the \"Participant\"), except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement. Each of the parties agree that they will not seek the imposition of any Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other Order which would attempt to assign any rights in the Retirement Benefits from the Participant to the non-participant party. The Participant will receive 100% of the Retirement Benefit and the non- participant party will receive none of the Retirement Benefit, regardless of when it is paid. .... 3. DISPOSITION OF SEPARATE PROPERTY. Each pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: herein contemplated, Wife hereby disclaims any and all rights to any of the property as set forth in Exhibit \"A,\" or any property acquired from proceeds thereof, or any replacement property, or any additional property belonging to Husband. .... g. Any retirement benefit, account or right, including any distributions or other payments to a party and any increase in such benefit or account during the term of the marriage, either by -3- contributions, earnings or appreciation whether the Participant or others make investment decisions (\"Retirement Benefit\"), will be the separate non-marital property of the party who is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3563 ___________________________ MidAmerican Pension and Employee Benefits Plans Administrative Committee lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael G. Cox, Sr.; Joleen Cox lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants Kathy L. Cox lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ba823cd-469c-426c-ba16-6b5b997c47e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1033631-1033631","title":"CourtListener opinion 1033631","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"646 F.3d 504","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 8. RETIREMENT PLANS AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. a. To the extent that either party is entitled to benefits receivable under a retirement plan or individual retirement account, subject to the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as now existing or hereafter amended, 29 USCS §§ 1001-1461, which require joint and survivor annuities, pre- retirement survivor annuities, or any other similar benefit, the other party hereby irrevocably consents to the participant employee's change in beneficiary or change in the form of -4- payment of benefits without further consent by the non-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1034489 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JOAN M. and. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.3d 365. Docket: and location. Donald asked the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1034489 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: no basis in the present record on appeal for finding that Donald receives a pension that Joan is entitled to share. On remand, Joan may present the trial court with evidence that Donald failed to disclose a source of income and ask the trial court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) directing payment of half of Donald‟s pension to Joan. 4. Social Security Benefits Joan makes an indecipherable argument about Donald‟s Social Security being subject to spousal support. The trial court did, in fact, direct Donald to pay Joan $300 per month in support from his SSDI benefits, inasmuch as this is the only income that Donald testified h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ocial Security disability income (SSDI) of $551 (Joan) and $1,500 (Donald). They divided the proceeds from the sale of their house equally: each received between $45,000 and $50,000, after costs. They have spent the sale proceeds, and have no stocks, bonds or retirement accounts. Donald has not worked since his employer went out of business in 1996. Before his layoff, he was earning about $50,000 annually. He testified that he does not receive a company pension. Donald admitted that he has not been paying court-ordered spousal support to Joan because he spends all of his $1,500 SSDI. Joan received a worker‟s compensation settleme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: xhibits listing community property such as furniture, appliances, knives and cars. She asked the court to order an appraisal for various collectibles, such as books, magazines, model cars, Zippo lighters, comic books, and so on. She requested half of Donald‟s pension. In response, Donald stated that he \"is legally blind, and neither party is capable of gainful employment.\" On May 4, 2009, the court ordered the parties to list for sale three classic cars; to either sell their guns and split the proceeds or purchase them; to divide the knives among themselves; and to divide the pension. Donald was ordered to pay spousal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d4fcade-c62e-41fa-a329-bb9fad1cfab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1034489-1034489","title":"CourtListener opinion 1034489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and location. Donald asked the","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.3d 365","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in the present record on appeal for finding that Donald receives a pension that Joan is entitled to share. On remand, Joan may present the trial court with evidence that Donald failed to disclose a source of income and ask the trial court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) directing payment of half of Donald‟s pension to Joan. 4. Social Security Benefits Joan makes an indecipherable argument about Donald‟s Social Security being subject to spousal support. The trial court did, in fact, direct Donald to pay Joan $300 per month in support from his SSDI benefits, inasmuch as this is the only income that Donald testified h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10346325 Docket: 430. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10346325 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: with husband. It reasoned that, although the general dissolution judgment does not 2 The general dissolution judgment provides in part: \"[E]ach party has a PERS OPSRP defined benefit plan. Both PERS OPSRP defined benefit plans are being divided equally by QDRO. Therefore Wife shall be entitled to half of the marital value of Husband's PERS OPSRP plan. Husband shall likewise be entitled to half of the marital value of Wife's PERS OPSRP plan. The parties will each be responsible for hiring and paying for their own attorney to handle their QDRO to receive the funds from the other parties' account. The end date"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: use the term \"state\" generically to refer to public bodies that participate in PERS. 4 The court explained the time rule in Kiser: \"The ‘coverature' or ‘time rule' is typically used to calculate the ‘mari- tal portion' of benefits under a defined benefit retirement plan. The marital portion is determined by multiplying the benefit to be divided by a fraction, the numerator of which is the years (or months) of service during which the couple were married and the denominator is the total years (or months) of employment.\" 176 Or App at 632 n 1. 5 Wife proposed determining the marital value of each party's pension ben- e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: judgment, arguing that it is inconsistent with the general dissolution judgment. We affirm. Husband and wife were married in 2000. During their marriage, they were both members of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and each will receive a pension from PERS on retirement. Although the PERS statutes provide different methods for calculat- ing a member's pension benefits, see Piller and Piller, 318 Or App 836, 842-43, 843 n 7, 508 P3d 553 (2022), the parties agree that each of them will receive a defined benefit plan on retirement. That is, the parties agree that, when they retire, PERS will calculate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7721058c-753d-4285-89b2-81fdcebb571b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10346325-10346325","title":"CourtListener opinion 10346325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"430","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nt is dif- ficult to square with her argument in the trial court. In her lawyer's initial remarks to the trial court, wife's lawyer told the court, \"Well, I would first say that the general judgment does not specify which option to use in dealing—awarding the marital portion.\" And he contended that, even though Kiser stated that the time rule \"typically\" will be used when the general dissolution judgment does not specify how the marital portion of a defined benefit plan will be determined, Kiser \"does not say that the married time ratio is always used\" to fill gaps in a general judgment that divides defined 450 Jarvie and Csav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43bd6e1e-f89c-487e-b55d-b5035f9dec2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375","title":"CourtListener opinion 10352375","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10352375 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10352375 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43bd6e1e-f89c-487e-b55d-b5035f9dec2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375","title":"CourtListener opinion 10352375","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43bd6e1e-f89c-487e-b55d-b5035f9dec2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375","title":"CourtListener opinion 10352375","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd then renewed a non-marital relationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id. In concluding the debt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43bd6e1e-f89c-487e-b55d-b5035f9dec2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375","title":"CourtListener opinion 10352375","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: divorced and then renewed a non-marital relationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43bd6e1e-f89c-487e-b55d-b5035f9dec2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10352375-10352375","title":"CourtListener opinion 10352375","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id. In concluding the debt was a dischargeable money judgment, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1035522 Extracted reporter citation: 677 F.3d 178. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1035522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. Action No. 1-11-cv-02893) Distric"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As we write principally for the benefit of the parties, we recite only the essential facts and procedural history. Plaintiff was a participant in a 401(k) retirement plan sponsored by his employer, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (\"A&P\"). In 2008, A&P and Fidelity entered into a Trust Agreement under which Fidelity agreed to provide recordkeeping and administrative services for the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Savings Plan (\"A&P Plan\"), which included the review of DROs for compliance with E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. Action No. 1-11-cv-02893) District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas ______________ Submitted Under Thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eae6bb6c-82c0-4aee-8ec2-4718381d67ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1035522-1035522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1035522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"677 F.3d 178","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1036323 Extracted reporter citation: 635 P.2d 1186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1036323 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cause not otherwise provided for may be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has accrued.\" 18 AS 09.10.010 (emphasis added). -8- 6803 of Van Brocklin as authorizing only an independent action. Third, Theresa argues that, before the use of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) was commonplace, our stated preference for dividing pensions in divorce actions was for a court to retain jurisdiction in order to make the actual division at a later time. Theresa quotes at length from our opinion in Thomas v. Thomas:19 In Laing we stated our preference for reserving jurisdiction as an alternative to valuing non-vested pensions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Before: Carpeneti, Chief Justice, Fabe, Winfree, and Stowers, Justices, and Eastaugh, Senior Justice.* CARPENETI, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A couple divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide the parties' property. The man receives military retirement benefits from over 22 years of service in the United States military. In October 2010 the woman filed a motion seeking a post­ * Sitting by assignment made under article IV, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska Administrative Rule 23(a). decree equitable division of property. The man opposed, arguing that the woman's claim was barred by (1) the stat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ate the absent spouse. .... THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: .... 3. This decree does not bar future action on the issues not resolved in this decree. Hank was in the United States military for over 22 years and has received $1,471.00 per month from a military pension since sometime in either 2002 or 2003. Theresa worked for the Anchorage School District for about six years, from which she also receives a pension. B. Proceedings On June 14, 2010, Theresa filed a motion under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b), in which she sought to have the court \"set aside the dissolution decree for fraud upon the court.\" Theresa claimed that,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa1e3245-da22-4b17-a6af-6b4314740e55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1036323-1036323","title":"CourtListener opinion 1036323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 P.2d 1186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: otherwise provided for may be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has accrued.\" 18 AS 09.10.010 (emphasis added). -8- 6803 of Van Brocklin as authorizing only an independent action. Third, Theresa argues that, before the use of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) was commonplace, our stated preference for dividing pensions in divorce actions was for a court to retain jurisdiction in order to make the actual division at a later time. Theresa quotes at length from our opinion in Thomas v. Thomas:19 In Laing we stated our preference for reserving jurisdiction as an alternative to valuing non-vested pensions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10374035 Extracted reporter citation: 108 F.3d 86. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10374035 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the 1974 Pension Plan. As set forth in his Complaint, Plaintiff is a participant in the 1974 Pension Plan, who is currently collecting his benefits, which commenced on August 1, 2014, and continue to date. Plaintiff's Complaint is based on the effect of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")2 on Plaintiff's pension benefits under the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan (\"the 1974 Pension Plan\"). Pursuant to the QDRO, the 1974 Pension Plan was to pay Plaintiff's ex-wife, Laureen C. Mulvey, a pension benefit as part of the Mulvey's property distribution from their divorce. The terms of the QDRO allowed Ms. Mulvey to commence her benefits at any t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: v. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH Magistrate Judge Deavers UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUND, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (\"UMWA\") 1974 Pension Trust's (\"1974 Pension Trust\")1 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff has filed several letters with the Court as well as two separate Responses in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 11, 13, 15, and 19). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Jury Trial and Motion to Stay. (Doc. 14). These motions are fully briefed an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Court on June 7, 2019. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts that he retired from the McElroy coal mine after 45 years of service and was entitled to receive his union pension from UMWA. (Doc. 3, Compl.). The 1974 Pension Plan is an employee benefit plan regulated by ERISA as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., and the 1974 Pension Trust is a trust fund established pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act as amended, and 29 U.S.C. § 186. The 1974 Pension Trust provides pension benefits to eligible mine workers under the terms of the 1974 Pension Plan. As set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"445da88c-8ae6-497f-8720-b9e1ae55bc54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10374035-10374035","title":"CourtListener opinion 10374035","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"108 F.3d 86","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: rovided that her benefit be based on her life expectancy and payable for her lifetime. The relevant language assigning the interest in Plaintiff's benefits to his ex-wife is set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the QDRO, which state as follows: 7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50 percent of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier . . . 2 The QDRO at issue is referred to in Plaintiff's C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c90c228-2b6f-43ee-8e47-40f444f723e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717","title":"CourtListener opinion 1038717","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1038717 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of RICHARD J. and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1038717 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c90c228-2b6f-43ee-8e47-40f444f723e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717","title":"CourtListener opinion 1038717","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c90c228-2b6f-43ee-8e47-40f444f723e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717","title":"CourtListener opinion 1038717","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: A decade later they returned to court to resolve their respective interests in Richard's Wells Fargo Retirement Annuity (Annuity).1 The trial court awarded each party a 50 percent interest in the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \\As is customary in family law proceedings"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c90c228-2b6f-43ee-8e47-40f444f723e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717","title":"CourtListener opinion 1038717","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ater they returned to court to resolve their respective interests in Richard's Wells Fargo Retirement Annuity (Annuity).1 The trial court awarded each party a 50 percent interest in the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \\As is customary in family law proceedings"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c90c228-2b6f-43ee-8e47-40f444f723e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1038717-1038717","title":"CourtListener opinion 1038717","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \\As is customary in family law proceedings"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10396361 Extracted case name: OPINION & ORDER v. HILLSBORO MEDICAL CENTER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10396361 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ica Retirement Advisor's Motion for Entry of Judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Maritta Erickson began working as a registered nurse with Defendant Hillsboro Medical Center (\"HMC\")1 on October 20, 1986. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Retirement Plan (the \"Frozen Plan\")2 from November 1, 1987, through August 31, 2012, at which time the Frozen Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Cash Balance Pension Plan (the \"Cash Balance Plan\") from September 1, 2012, through May 31, 2020. Plaintiff retired from HMC on June 15, 2020."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ality Healthcare Retirement Plan (the \"Frozen Plan\")2 from November 1, 1987, through August 31, 2012, at which time the Frozen Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Cash Balance Pension Plan (the \"Cash Balance Plan\") from September 1, 2012, through May 31, 2020. Plaintiff retired from HMC on June 15, 2020. On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to HMC and Defendant Transamerica Retirement Advisors (\"TRA\") asserting that HMC erred in the calculation of her retirement benefits under the Frozen Plan. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted HMC faile"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: HMC was Tuality Medical Center at the time Plaintiff was hired until November 2019. 2 It is undisputed that HMC is the plan sponsor and administrator of the Frozen Plan and a fiduciary under the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). sent a second letter to HMC and TRA noting she had received employer-matched benefits from her 403(b) retirement account3 in 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, therefore, she believed she also met the Frozen Plan 1,000-hour threshold to be credited with a year of benefit service in each of those years. Plaintiff attached some of her paystubs and asserted they s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65431450-74f7-4297-9705-3ebcf344cf27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10396361-10396361","title":"CourtListener opinion 10396361","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the plans, or administration of the plans, nor does it provide TRA with authority to manage the plans or to administer the plans' assets. Rather, Section II reflects TRA agreed to assume fiduciary responsibility for things such as reviewing and evaluating domestic relations orders, preparing benefit election forms, reviewing benefit election forms for accuracy, conducting \"weekly death audits for retirees,\" and notifying \"terminated vested participants.\" Tr. 1227-28. The provision of the PSA that Plaintiff relies on for her assertion that TRA had relevant fiduciary duties is contained in the portion of the PSA addressing \"float"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10401958 Extracted reporter citation: 850 F.3d 526. Docket: 25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10401958 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers' Union based upon a specified calculation. The state court approving the divorce or the spouses' lawyers unfortunately never docketed the draft qualified domestic relations order confirming the wife's share of the monthly stream of his pension payments upon retirement. The laborer retired in 2018. The former spouses now could not agree as to the sharing of the pension payments and the ex-wife's lawyer threatened to sue the pension fund. The pension fund interpleaded earlier this year asking our direction and deposited the chal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: : MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J. October 19, 2021 A lifelong laborer divorced his wife over fifteen years ago. He signed a property settlement agreement in January 2003 confirming his wife's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers' Union based upon a specified calculation. The state court approving the divorce or the spouses' lawyers unfortunately never docketed the draft qualified domestic relations order confirming the wife's share of the monthly stream of his pension payments upon retirement. The laborer retired in 2018. The former spouses now could n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LABORERS' : CIVIL ACTION DISTRICT COUNCIL : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY : PENSION PLAN : : v. : NO. 21-1965 : ANTHONY BOWMAN, et al. : MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J. October 19, 2021 A lifelong laborer divorced his wife over fifteen years ago. He signed a property settlement agreement in January 2003 confirming his wife's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2472319-645b-4fd5-aa09-8da3784fb199","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10401958-10401958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10401958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier","extracted_reporter_citation":"850 F.3d 526","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d to Mr. and Ms. Bowman, and begin paying Mr. Bowman his benefits during the pendency of this litigation. We find the property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree is sufficient to qualify as a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA and the Plan terms. The Plan prohibits participants from assigning, alienating, transferring, selling or otherwise encumbering his or her pension benefits.24 But the Plan excepts this prohibition if the participant grants a right in his or her pension benefits through a \"qualified domestic relations order as defined by Section 414(p)\" of the Internal R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10402432 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.3d 223. Docket: 1-1. The State. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10402432 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s. 29 & 31 – Dismissed Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. January 5, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive payments to this day. Believing that Alight"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: mestic relations order\" explaining how certain property, payments from a pension plan, should be split between divorced parties. See Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547, 549 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Normally, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts \"any and all State laws insofar as they may . . . relate to any employee benefit plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). However, ERISA does \"not apply to qualified domestic relation orders\" such as the QDRO. Id. § 1144(b)(7). The definition of a qualified domestic relations order is provided in ERISA. See id. §§ 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)–(ii) Clark does not cha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18d25220-40da-433a-854c-40b5d77f8778","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402432-10402432","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: – Dismissed Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. January 5, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3a7ab0-08e3-4136-96ff-77d6a7a9e509","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10402876 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.3d 223. Docket: 1-1. The State. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10402876 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3a7ab0-08e3-4136-96ff-77d6a7a9e509","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3a7ab0-08e3-4136-96ff-77d6a7a9e509","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Defendant. : ____________________________________ O P I N I O N Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44 – Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. March 11, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Following Bruce Clark's divorce, the State Court issued a qualified domestic relations order, which split Clark's retirement payments between him and his ex-wife. According to Clark, the partial payments to his ex-wife should have stopped in January 2017. However, the payments continued, so he filed multiple lawsuits against his ex-wife in the State Court attempting to stop the payments to her. Clark's efforts failed in the State Court, so he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3a7ab0-08e3-4136-96ff-77d6a7a9e509","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t matter jurisdiction, it is barred from reviewing his claim, or would abstain from adjudicating his claim, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and domestic relations doctrine. II. BACKGROUND a. Alleged Facts1 Clark is currently the beneficiary of a PECO Pension Plan. See Orig. Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. Under the Plan, the Plan Administrator makes monthly payments to Clark. 2 However, in December 2016, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (the State Court) certified a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) that diverted a portion of the Plan's monthly payments to Clark's ex-wife. See generally QDRO,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3a7ab0-08e3-4136-96ff-77d6a7a9e509","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10402876-10402876","title":"CourtListener opinion 10402876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. The State","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.3d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt. : ____________________________________ O P I N I O N Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44 – Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. March 11, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Following Bruce Clark's divorce, the State Court issued a qualified domestic relations order, which split Clark's retirement payments between him and his ex-wife. According to Clark, the partial payments to his ex-wife should have stopped in January 2017. However, the payments continued, so he filed multiple lawsuits against his ex-wife in the State Court attempting to stop the payments to her. Clark's efforts failed in the State Court, so he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53ae02c3-960e-4209-b129-95b8c9e56a19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492","title":"CourtListener opinion 10404492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21. Alight then timely","extracted_reporter_citation":"71 F.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10404492 Extracted reporter citation: 71 F.3d 29. Docket: 21. Alight then timely. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10404492 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53ae02c3-960e-4209-b129-95b8c9e56a19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492","title":"CourtListener opinion 10404492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21. Alight then timely","extracted_reporter_citation":"71 F.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53ae02c3-960e-4209-b129-95b8c9e56a19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492","title":"CourtListener opinion 10404492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21. Alight then timely","extracted_reporter_citation":"71 F.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 21-1855 : v. : : ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC and EXELON : CORPORATION, : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Smith, J. December 14, 2022 This action involves the pro se plaintiff's claim that the defendants did not comply with a state-court issued qualified domestic relations order when they continued to pay his ex-wife certain benefits after the court-ordered period to do so had expired. Nine months ago, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice, primarily for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this dismissal,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53ae02c3-960e-4209-b129-95b8c9e56a19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492","title":"CourtListener opinion 10404492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21. Alight then timely","extracted_reporter_citation":"71 F.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t Alight (Doc. No. 9), (2) a motion for entry of a default judgment (Doc. No. 3 In the first document, it seems as if Clark wanted Judge Leeson to \"concur\" with \"directives\" he presented to Alight via a May 12, 2021 \"Formal Legal Notification to the Exelon Pension Plan Administrator.\" Doc. No. 6 at ECF pp. 1, 2. In this \"Legal Notification\", Clark explained that by Alight not having responded to his complaint, \"it is conclusively presumed that [it] is conceding to the criminal charges as presented and is by default entering a guilty plea and is willing to accede to the requested payments and penalties as presented"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53ae02c3-960e-4209-b129-95b8c9e56a19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10404492-10404492","title":"CourtListener opinion 10404492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21. Alight then timely","extracted_reporter_citation":"71 F.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: : v. : : ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC and EXELON : CORPORATION, : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Smith, J. December 14, 2022 This action involves the pro se plaintiff's claim that the defendants did not comply with a state-court issued qualified domestic relations order when they continued to pay his ex-wife certain benefits after the court-ordered period to do so had expired. Nine months ago, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice, primarily for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this dismissal,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10407029 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Docket: 12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407029 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d)(1), \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With very few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for \"any offset of a participant's benefits provided under [a plan] against an amount that the participant is ordered or required to pay to the plan if the order or requirement to pay arises out of a conviction for a crime involving the plan,\" or pursuant to a civil judgment or settlement a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n provisions which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern.\" Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under Section 206(d)(1), \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With very few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for \"any offset of a pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: lah Burns on the monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Merck employee. Because those funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion shall be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas against her former husband, Defendant Blakely Cooper, in a defamation action. Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n. Mot. Dismiss 2, ECF No. 12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fa47d8-b1f0-4222-b3c4-d904d2f4af43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407029-10407029","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ON v. : : NO. 23-5086 BLAKELEY COOPER, et. al. : MEMORANDUM Judge Juan R. Sánchez April 1, 2024 Garnishee Merck, Sharp and Dohme LLC (Merck) moves to dismiss and quash the writ of execution filed by Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns on the monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Merck employee. Because those funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion shall be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10407410 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Docket: 10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407410 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 206(d)(1), \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for \"any offset of a participant's benefits provided under [a plan] against an amount that the participant is ordered or required to pay to the plan if the order or requirement to pay arises out of a conviction for a crime involving the plan,\" or pursuant to a civil judgment or settlement a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n provisions which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern.\" Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under Section 206(d)(1), \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for \"any offset of a partic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: on for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because the funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion will be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas against Cooper, her former husband, in a defamation action. Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n 2, ECF No. 10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on appeal, but Cooper has yet to pay anything on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d95e38b-ea52-44e6-8a77-2ec1aeee6c6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407410-10407410","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407410","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on","extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMIYLAH BURNS : CIVIL ACTION : v. : No. 23-5090 : BLAKELY COOPER, et. al. : MEMORANDUM Judge Juan R. Sánchez June 13, 2024 Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns brings this garnishment action to collect monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Pfizer employee. Garnishee Pfizer Inc. (\"Pfizer\") moves to dismiss Burns' garnishment action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because the funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10407815 Extracted reporter citation: 428 F.3d 478. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407815 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ommon Pleas. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills, as is necessary for Ashline to state a breach-of-contract claim. Currently pending are motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Ashline and Tri-State. Michael Ashline died on July 22, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: contract 1 For a discussion of QDROs, and why the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a QDRO see our Memorandum Opinion of November 27, 2018. Doc. 39. Ashline suggests that she yet may be able to obtain a QDRO. And she might. See Files v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478, 491 (3d Cir. 2005) (\"Nothing in the statute, or in our precedent, requires that a QDRO be in place prior to the death of a plan participant when the QDRO that is ultimately obtained by engaging the statutory process simply seeks to enforce a separate interest in a pension benefit that 2 between Ashline and Tri-State, as is necessar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ssociates, Inc. (\"R.P. Mills\"), and Michael E. Ashline (\"Michael Ashline\"). Ashline's claims are based on a divorce decree issued by the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b371602-32ab-4149-b363-4d65c9da1aac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10407815-10407815","title":"CourtListener opinion 10407815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"428 F.3d 478","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills, as is necessary for Ashline to state a breach-of-contract claim. Currently pending are motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Ashline and Tri-State. Michael Ashline died on July 22, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10408757 Extracted reporter citation: 527 F.3d 358. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10408757 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: contradictory and misleading. To the extent there is a contradiction between the Summary Plan Description and the terms of the Pension Trust, the latter prevails. However, notwithstanding whether the Summary Plan Description is misleading, ERISA requires a QDRO in order for the divorce settlement to be dispositive. The time for a QDRO long since expired. Under these circumstances guided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, counsel did not challenge defendant's motion for summary judgment. Counsel advise Mr. Nathan Kakazu, attorney for defendant, that he would not contest the motion, but was not authorized to concur in the re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK MOYER, : Civil No. 3:19-CV-01270 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : TRUSTEES OF THE : BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH : NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, : : Defendant. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM Before the court is Defendant Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust's (\"Pension Trust\") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 14.) The court finds that this declaratory judgment action is actually a benefits dispute claim pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Sec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust's (\"Pension Trust\") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 14.) The court finds that this declaratory judgment action is actually a benefits dispute claim pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), and that Plaintiff Mark Moyer's (\"Moyer\") claim is time barred. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In considering the Pension Trust's motion for summary judgment, the court relied on the uncontested facts, or where the facts were disputed, viewed the facts and deduced all reasonable infe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6905d914-0a47-4e21-be49-3444d88e2bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10408757-10408757","title":"CourtListener opinion 10408757","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"527 F.3d 358","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: s the court to examine the terms of the Plan Document. (Id. at 5–6.) Further, the Pension Trust submits that this ERISA action is a benefits dispute claim because Moyer's main contention is that the Pension Trust \"improperly refused to remove Ms. Allen as survivor annuitant on [Moyer's] pension.\" (Id. at 6–7.) ERISA's preemption power is broad and will preempt \"any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter related to any employee benefit plan.\" Pilot Life Ins. CP. V. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44–45 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)). When the state law claim relates to an ERISA claim, ERISA preempts that state l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10419781 Extracted case name: NAACP v. N. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10419781 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties' consolidated factual statements and responses, which appear at ECF No. 143, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Defendant PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. sponsors the Incentive Savings Plan (the \"Plan\"), which is a defined contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching employer contributions. ECF No. 143 ¶ 1. The Plan is open to nearly all U.S.-based salaried and hourly employees of PNC, including Plaintiff John McCauley. Id. ¶ 2. The employees that participate in the Plan may choose how to invest the contributions among a variety of professionally managed funds. Id."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: OPINION Plaintiff John McCauley claims that Defendants PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Incentive Savings Plan Administrative Committee (collectively \"PNC\") violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., when they paid excessive recordkeeping fees for their employees' Incentive Savings Plan. ECF No. 42. PNC now moves for summary judgment on all claims and seeks to exclude Mr. McCauley's expert witness. ECF Nos. 101, 111. For the following reasons, the Court will grant both of PNC's Motions. I. Material Facts The followi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ts are drawn from the parties' consolidated factual statements and responses, which appear at ECF No. 143, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Defendant PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. sponsors the Incentive Savings Plan (the \"Plan\"), which is a defined contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching employer contributions. ECF No. 143 ¶ 1. The Plan is open to nearly all U.S.-based salaried and hourly employees of PNC, including Plaintiff John McCauley. Id. ¶ 2. The employees that participate in the Plan may choose how to invest the contributions among a variety of professionally man"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32b117a2-645d-4ef8-9f45-5d70f78ca309","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10419781-10419781","title":"CourtListener opinion 10419781","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vices to the Plan's participants. Id. ¶¶ 4–6. Alight charged the Plan a flat dollar amount per participant for its core services. Id. ¶ 8. It then charged additional fees for certain participant-elected services, such as loan processing and qualification of domestic relations orders. Id. ¶ 8. Alight never received fees from PNC or the Plan that were calculated as asset-based fees. Id. The Plan allocated the cost of Alight's recordkeeping services to participants' individual accounts on a pro-rata \"asset-based\" charge. Id. ¶ 9. In 2014, the Plan's base recordkeeping fee was $46.55 per participant, and it declined to $32.00 per part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee8ffbe3-7524-431f-a722-fe0e6961544c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1042269","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1042269 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1042269 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee8ffbe3-7524-431f-a722-fe0e6961544c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1042269","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee8ffbe3-7524-431f-a722-fe0e6961544c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1042269-1042269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1042269","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sent an abbreviated discussion of the facts underlying the convictions because they are not germane to the claims of error on appeal. 2 (§ 666; count 2); unauthorized entry into a dwelling, a misdemeanor (§ 602.5, subd. (a); count 3); and disobedience of a domestic relations order, a misdemeanor (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 4). It was also alleged as enhancements that defendant had suffered two prior violent or serious felonies, i.e., strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), namely, robbery (§ 211) and receiving stolen property (§ 496); had three prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)); and had two prior convictions for which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10440385 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10440385 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: most state laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), it is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). In this instance, the Court need not decide whether the Divorce Decree qualifies as a QDRO, as the Sixth Circuit has noted that \"once the benefits [of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discreti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discretion to impose a constructive trust upon those benefits in accordance with applicable state law if equity so requires.\" Cent. States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund. v. Howell, 227 F.3d 672, 679 (6th Cir.2000). Here, the Court has permitted Unum to deposit the life insurance benefit into the Court's funds and Unum has done so. Therefore, because Unum properly released the benefits, the Court turns to Tennessee law to determine whether to impose a constructive trust. See Gray v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 11-220"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: blish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.\" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. ANALYSIS Unum's life insurance policy falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Generally, ERISA completely preempts most state laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), it is exempt fro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"689f25d1-1844-4d04-86ed-b1a6f188fd2e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10440385-10440385","title":"CourtListener opinion 10440385","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), it is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). In this instance, the Court need not decide whether the Divorce Decree qualifies as a QDRO, as the Sixth Circuit has noted that \"once the benefits [of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discreti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10441247 Extracted reporter citation: 237 F.3d 598. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10441247 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: icipants as of November 11, 2013 in Plan, including (i) beneficiaries of deceased participants who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future; and (b) all persons, other than AutoZone, who have been participants or beneficiaries in either the Plan and had account balances in the Plan at any time between November 11, 2013 through the date of judgment. (ECF No. 173 at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ments concerning little, if anything, to make clear to the Court \"those issues that are dispositive and contentious.\" Currie, 50 F.3d at 380; see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147. For example, why is the Report's finding that \"[t]he Plan is a defined-contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching contributions from AutoZone\" (ECF No. 205 at PageID 4801) objectionable to Defendants when they have explained in their own submissions to the Court that \"[t]he Plan is a defined contribution plan\" that is \"funded through both employee contributions and matching contributions from AutoZone . . . \"? (EC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: he Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections and ADOPTS the Report. BACKGROUND This litigation involves Plaintiffs' claims that AutoZone, Inc. (\"AutoZone\") and others breached their fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). (ECF No. 85 at PageID 1169.) Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges one count of breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1109. (Id. at PageID 1265.) They seek certification of the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1): All persons, other than Defendants, who were participants as of November 11, 2013 in Plan, including (i) ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a91bcf9-0cd4-48be-a916-184eaa3d378e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10441247-10441247","title":"CourtListener opinion 10441247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"237 F.3d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR. and ) NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, ) on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) ) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly ) situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp ) v. ) ) AUTOZONE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ___________________________________________________________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1044207 Extracted case name: MICHAEL DANIEL FRY v. YURIKO SHINODA FRY. Extracted reporter citation: 18 S.W.3d 621. Docket: M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044207 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: etirement benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (\"DFAS\"), but she was unsuccessful because she did not provide DFAS with a decree including a specific amount or a formula by which a specific amount could"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y to comply with the Act. The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband on appeal and issued a mandate directing the trial court to amend its Final Decree using language meant to comply with the Act's requirements to enable Wife to receive her portion of Husband's retirement benefits directly from the military. Wife still has not been able to collect her portion of Husband's retirement benefits and filed another Rule 60 motion seeking to amend the Final Decree again to comply with the Act's requirements. The trial court denied Wife's motion and we reverse the trial court's judgment. Wife presents extraordinary circumstances entitling h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: January 2000 after being married for a little over ten years. The Final Decree of Divorce awarded Wife a portion of Husband's Navy retirement benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Serv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f450d49-008b-4738-91cf-fc23fc84f300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044207-1044207","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-","extracted_reporter_citation":"18 S.W.3d 621","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (\"DFAS\"), but she was unsuccessful because she did not provide DFAS with a decree including a specific amount or a formula by which a specific amount could"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0c89cd6-f0d5-47a9-b116-6ead2547d0c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"38 S.W.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1044305 Extracted case name: SHARON LYNN PUCKETT v. BOBBY WAYNE PUCKETT. Extracted reporter citation: 38 S.W.3d 560. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044305 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0c89cd6-f0d5-47a9-b116-6ead2547d0c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"38 S.W.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0c89cd6-f0d5-47a9-b116-6ead2547d0c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044305-1044305","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"38 S.W.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t, that Wife \"felt belittled by [the judge's] comments to me and could not understand this with his knowledge that [Wife is] on disability for both psychiatric and physical conditions,\" and that the judge had \"refused to believe [Wife's] fears about using the QDRO funds and he wanted to incarcerate [Wife] for not paying bills that [Wife] had been forced to agree to pay at mediation.\" Wife's affidavit also alleged that Wife felt she could not obtain a \"fair and impartial hearing\" from this judge. Husband filed a response to Wife's motion for recusal asking the Trial Court to deny the motion. After a hearing on Wife'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c74a04fb-1c10-4676-a86c-24aaecbdde1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"826 S.W.2d 443","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1044313 Extracted case name: VIOLET CORROZZO v. JOSEPH CORROZZO. Extracted reporter citation: 826 S.W.2d 443. Docket: M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044313 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c74a04fb-1c10-4676-a86c-24aaecbdde1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"826 S.W.2d 443","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c74a04fb-1c10-4676-a86c-24aaecbdde1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"826 S.W.2d 443","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Court of Appeals of Tennessee.2 In June 2003, the parties entered into an Agreed Order of Non-Dischargeability in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy order stated that Husband owed Wife the following sums for attorney's fees and costs: $500 for obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Illinois; $7,850 resulting from a prior appeal to this court; $4,063.94 from Husband's attempts to reopen the divorce case in Illinois; and $1,490.50 in Husband's bankruptcy proceedings, for a total sum of $13,904.44. The 2003 bankruptcy order additionally stated that Wife was entitled to \"intercept and receive\" Husband's 60% share of the pension payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c74a04fb-1c10-4676-a86c-24aaecbdde1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"826 S.W.2d 443","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: urt for Rutherford County No. 00-DR-1329 Royce Taylor, Judge No. M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 13, 2013 Ex-wife appeals from a trial court's adoption of a report by the clerk and master that her ex- husband had fully satisfied a judgment for unpaid pension payments arising from the parties' 1996 divorce and the determination that she is not entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred in the underlying case and other proceedings. The clerk and master found that an October 2001 judgment for an unpaid arrearage in pension payments had been satisfied and the ex- wife did not timely file an objection. The trial c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c74a04fb-1c10-4676-a86c-24aaecbdde1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1044313-1044313","title":"CourtListener opinion 1044313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"826 S.W.2d 443","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ppeals of Tennessee.2 In June 2003, the parties entered into an Agreed Order of Non-Dischargeability in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy order stated that Husband owed Wife the following sums for attorney's fees and costs: $500 for obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Illinois; $7,850 resulting from a prior appeal to this court; $4,063.94 from Husband's attempts to reopen the divorce case in Illinois; and $1,490.50 in Husband's bankruptcy proceedings, for a total sum of $13,904.44. The 2003 bankruptcy order additionally stated that Wife was entitled to \"intercept and receive\" Husband's 60% share of the pension payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1045226 Extracted case name: FRANCESCA MARIA PIER v. KATHERINE JUNGKIND. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1045226 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uitable settlement of property rights in the MDA. The trial court incorporated the MDA into the final decree of divorce. Ms. Jungkind filed the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") with the trial court on January 30, 2009. On June 9, 2009, an amended QDRO was entered for the pension plan. On October 23, 2009, Ms. Pier, acting pro se, filed complaints alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Katherine Jungkind (Ms. Jungkind), Evans Petree, Wanda Shea (Ms. Shea), Mary Morgan Whitfield (Ms. Whitfield) and Shea Moskovitz (collectively, \"Defendants\") in the Circuit Court for Shelby County"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of divorce. The MDA provided, in relevant part, that Ms. Pier would receive one-half of Mr. Pier's Northwest Retirement Savings Plan (\"the 401k\"), fifty-five percent of the \"marital portion\" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in the defined benefit Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees (\"the pension plan\"), and fifty-five percent of the \"marital portion\" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in a Prudential Preferred Live Fixed Dollar Annuity (\"the annuity\"). It further provided that the Piers \"agree[d] to use Kitty Jungkind and/or Blake Bourland . . . with the law firm of Evans and Petree to draft any and all Qualified Dome"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ) and Raymond Pier (Mr. Pier; collectively, \"the Piers\") entered a marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\") in anticipation of divorce. The MDA provided, in relevant part, that Ms. Pier would receive one-half of Mr. Pier's Northwest Retirement Savings Plan (\"the 401k\"), fifty-five percent of the \"marital portion\" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in the defined benefit Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees (\"the pension plan\"), and fifty-five percent of the \"marital portion\" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in a Prudential Preferred Live Fixed Dollar Annuity (\"the annuity\"). It further provided that the Piers \"agree[d] t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be488aec-68bb-4a27-b023-a15bdabc3a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045226-1045226","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045226","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: permanent parenting plan, and finding that the Piers had made adequate and sufficient provision for the equitable settlement of property rights in the MDA. The trial court incorporated the MDA into the final decree of divorce. Ms. Jungkind filed the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") with the trial court on January 30, 2009. On June 9, 2009, an amended QDRO was entered for the pension plan. On October 23, 2009, Ms. Pier, acting pro se, filed complaints alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Katherine Jungkind (Ms. Jungkind), Evans Petree, Wanda Shea (Ms. Shea), Mary Morgan Whitfield (Ms. Whitfield)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10454761 Extracted reporter citation: 943 F.3d 434. Docket: entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10454761 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed as \"a person who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c).\"39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. First, Debtor has been represented by two attorneys and made 20 multiple appearances pro se in this bankruptcy. This resulted in inconsistent and at times 21 unfocu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: re fixed and determined at the time of the bankruptcy 6 petition under the \"snapshot\" rule.37 7 A.R.S. § 33-1126(B) states: 8 Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan…or a deferred 9 compensation plan under § 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, 10 as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 11 or participant. 12 Under 26 U.S.C. § 457,38 a beneficiary is defined as \"a person"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 11 or participant. 12 Under 26 U.S.C. § 457,38 a beneficiary is defined as \"a person who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c).\"39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. Fir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3010a8da-a0b5-44f3-9a83-0abdd6ba42bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454761-10454761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.3d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: erson who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c).\"39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. First, Debtor has been represented by two attorneys and made 20 multiple appearances pro se in this bankruptcy. This resulted in inconsistent and at times 21 unfocu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2fb7c5e-8d06-4778-8170-001bffb0d2fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454767","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 F.3d 1072","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10454767 Extracted reporter citation: 217 F.3d 1072. Docket: entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10454767 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2fb7c5e-8d06-4778-8170-001bffb0d2fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454767","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 F.3d 1072","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2fb7c5e-8d06-4778-8170-001bffb0d2fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454767","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 F.3d 1072","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d to Debtor and that the parties intended this result. 24 Trustee also argues that if the parties intended to equally divide Ex-Husband's and 25 Debtor's interest in the Compensation Account, under New Mexico law, the parties would have 26 had to execute a qualified domestic relations order (\"QRDO\") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 414(p). 27 The Trustee claims that Debtor's possible attempt to remedy this situation by amending the MSA 28 1 to include a QRDO would be ineffective because, for exemption purposes, the status of the 2 Compensation Account must be determined on the Petition Date. 3 4 C. Debtor's Position 5 Debtor argues that her inte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2fb7c5e-8d06-4778-8170-001bffb0d2fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454767","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 F.3d 1072","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: everal categories of retirement funds to be exempt from the reach 9 of creditors. Specifically, A.R.S. § 33-1126(B) states: 10 Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan…or a deferred 11 compensation plan under § 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, 12 as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 13 or participant. 14 15 B. Trustee's Position 16 Trustee argues that Debtor's i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2fb7c5e-8d06-4778-8170-001bffb0d2fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10454767-10454767","title":"CourtListener opinion 10454767","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 F.3d 1072","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r and that the parties intended this result. 24 Trustee also argues that if the parties intended to equally divide Ex-Husband's and 25 Debtor's interest in the Compensation Account, under New Mexico law, the parties would have 26 had to execute a qualified domestic relations order (\"QRDO\") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 414(p). 27 The Trustee claims that Debtor's possible attempt to remedy this situation by amending the MSA 28 1 to include a QRDO would be ineffective because, for exemption purposes, the status of the 2 Compensation Account must be determined on the Petition Date. 3 4 C. Debtor's Position 5 Debtor argues that her inte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10455629 Extracted reporter citation: 560 U.S. 770. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10455629 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court entered a dissolution of divorce decree awarding the debtor seventy (70%) percent of her now ex-spouse's non-qualified pension plan valued at $87,232.53 with Lincoln Financial Group (\"Lincoln\"), which amounted to $62,362.12.5 On September 3, 2013, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was submitted to Lincoln and thereafter, Lincoln sent the debtor a check in the amount of $62,362.12 payable to the debtor (\"Lincoln Funds\").6 During trial, Linda Ursin was qualified as an expert witness as to the rollover of funds from qualified and non-qualified retirement plans. She testified that when a payment is made from a non-qualified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aria McKeon, Esq. McKeon Law Group, LLC 117 Senate Brook Drive Counsel for Claimant Amston, Connecticut 06231 I. INTRODUCTION This opinion determines whether and to what extent a debtor is entitled to claim an exemption in funds held in an individual retirement account (\"IRA\") pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(d)(10)(E), (d)(11)(E), (d)(12), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(4).1 Prior to filing bankruptcy, the debtor, Sharon Brainard (the \"debtor\") established an IRA account using funds received following a divorce judgment from her now ex-husband's non-qualified pension plan. Mistakes were made when the IRA was established and the cons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: .S.C. §§ 522(d)(10)(E), (d)(11)(E), (d)(12), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(4).1 Prior to filing bankruptcy, the debtor, Sharon Brainard (the \"debtor\") established an IRA account using funds received following a divorce judgment from her now ex-husband's non-qualified pension plan. Mistakes were made when the IRA was established and the consequence of those mistakes is disputed. After filing a voluntary Chapter 7 petition, the debtor claimed numerous exemptions in the IRA account pursuant to various provisions of Bankruptcy Code § 522. The Chapter 7 Trustee, originally Thomas C. Boscarino, and now as successor Trustee, Bon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52f44a8c-d56b-4fae-a8e4-c9b9fef44ce0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10455629-10455629","title":"CourtListener opinion 10455629","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"560 U.S. 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ployee waived all of her rights to all future earnings from Ford). Internal Revenue Code § 408 Congress enacted § 408(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, providing for the creation of IRAs, as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829. The \"goal of Congress was to create a system whereby employees not covered by qualified retirement plans would have the opportunity to set aside at least some retirement savings on a tax-sheltered basis.\" Campbell v. Comm'r, 108 T.C. 54, 62–63, 1997 WL 65944 (1997)(citing H. Rept. 93–807 (1974), 1974–3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10457501 Extracted reporter citation: 564 U.S. 462. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cation of retirement funds. That provision says, in part: \"The Respondent shall receive $75,000.00 from the Petitioner's Lake County Plasters and Cement Mason Retirement Savings Plan to pay off her credit card debt. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" In addition to the $75,000 from the retirement account, the provision also required the Debtor's ex-husband to pay 1 The case was captioned: In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey P. Steinke, Petitioner, v. Kimberly J. Steinke, Respondent, case #21-D-8. her an additional amount up to $22,500 in monthly installments of $375 to cover the potential tax consequ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In Re ) ) Case No. 21-90618 KIMBERLY JO STEINKE, ) ) Chapter 7 Debtor. ) Before the Court is the Trustee's objection to the Debtor's amended claim of exemption in a portion of her ex-husband's retirement account awarded to her in a dissolution of marriage. For the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee's objection will be denied. I. Factual and Procedural Background Kimberly Jo Steinke (\"Debtor\") filed her voluntary Chapter 7 petition on December 21, 2021. Relevant to the issues here, she scheduled ownership of \"Annuity: Interest in ex-husband's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ts in retirement funds, including the right to receive distributions in the future. 735 ILCS 5/12-1006. Also important, the absence of a finalized QDRO does not change the Debtor's right to the exemption. A QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan[.]\" 26 U.S.C. §414(p)(1)(A). The QDRO is necessary to complete the separation of the Debtor's funds from the balance of her ex-husband's funds, but the finality of the division for purposes of determining her rights in this case occurred when th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf21cbf-92df-434e-b4c2-e8d01030f98f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457501-10457501","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"564 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: retirement funds. That provision says, in part: \"The Respondent shall receive $75,000.00 from the Petitioner's Lake County Plasters and Cement Mason Retirement Savings Plan to pay off her credit card debt. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" In addition to the $75,000 from the retirement account, the provision also required the Debtor's ex-husband to pay 1 The case was captioned: In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey P. Steinke, Petitioner, v. Kimberly J. Steinke, Respondent, case #21-D-8. her an additional amount up to $22,500 in monthly installments of $375 to cover the potential tax consequ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10457748 Extracted reporter citation: 504 U.S. 753. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ment Agreement that benefit Dennis will be abrogated. Dennis therefore objects to confirmation. He also moves for relief from stay to return to state court to enforce a term of the Settlement Agreement whereby under certain circumstances he is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to Debtor's exempt pension plan asset. Trial on the Motion for Relief from Stay1 was held on December 19, 2019.2 At the close of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court ordered that the record remain open and continued the matter for further consideration at the hearing on Dennis Pittman's Objection to Con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n. It also states that the $35,000.00 debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy and [s]hould wife default on the monthly payment for (2) two consecutive months or more, the Court will grant husband an unqualified Domestic Relations Order against wife's retirement account. Husband shall be granted the full-unpaid amount including interest. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this case and approve the Unqualified Domestic Relations Order in the event such provision needs to be implicated (sic).5 Paragraph G of Article IV provides: \"The debts and obligation assigned herein above are in the nature of alimony, mainten"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: jects to confirmation. He also moves for relief from stay to return to state court to enforce a term of the Settlement Agreement whereby under certain circumstances he is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to Debtor's exempt pension plan asset. Trial on the Motion for Relief from Stay1 was held on December 19, 2019.2 At the close of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court ordered that the record remain open and continued the matter for further consideration at the hearing on Dennis Pittman's Objection to Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan.3 Thereafter, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bf4b326-79d1-4ed7-8084-57560c61bc37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457748-10457748","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"504 U.S. 753","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: king relief from stay to obtain payment from Shelly personally. 7 A TSP is a defined contribution plan offered to federal employees that operates similarly to 401(k) plans offered by private employers.7 Funds held in a TSP, like funds in plans subject to ERISA, are excluded from the Bankruptcy estate by § 541(c)(2).8 This Court therefore has no jurisdiction to determine interests in the TSP. Dennis contends that cause for relief from stay exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). It provides, \"On request of a party in interest and after notice and hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay . . . (1) for cau"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1045778 Extracted case name: UNA P. IRVIN v. ERNEST J. IRVIN. Extracted reporter citation: 676 S.W.2d 554. Docket: M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1045778 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rs of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the trial court's order refers to the Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the court. The Stipulation states: -9- 1. That the parties have previously agreed to divide the marital estate, pursuant to the Mediation Agreement; 2. In addition to receiving the marital home, two (2) vehicles, and the other items in the [M]ed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: fees. The parties' mediation agreement was attached to the trial court's order and incorporated into it by reference. Pertinent to this appeal, the mediation agreement addressed the marital residence, Husband's military retirement, and the parties' remaining retirement account: 1. The Wife shall receive all interest in the [marital residence], for which she will be financially responsible. She shall refinance the mortgage or sell the house within three years of the entry of the Final Decree of Divorce. As long as the Husband is responsible on the mortgage, he shall have access to the mortgage account, and if the mortgage be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: or the Thrift Savings Plan [\"TSP\"] that is closest to the face balance of $36,000.00, as of the date of this agreement. This is to equalize equity in the marital residence. 3. The Wife will receive twenty-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a4face9-e54a-4464-a149-99037ba92b97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1045778-1045778","title":"CourtListener opinion 1045778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ice at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the trial court's order refers to the Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the court. The Stipulation states: -9- 1. That the parties have previously agreed to divide the marital estate, pursuant to the Mediation Agreement; 2. In addition to receiving the marital home, two (2) vehicles, and the other items in the [M]ed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10457789 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Johnston. Extracted reporter citation: 894 F.2d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457789 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nterest in the other party….\"40 In addition, Creditor Elam seeks a readjustment of her rights in the Debtor's retirement accounts. This Court and others have also found equitable rights of an ex-spouse creditor in situations such as this case to pursue a QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) in the state court.41 A QDRO is an order typically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan fund"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: violations.18 Debtor does not dispute most of the allegations about how the credit card account and house ownership have been handled but argues that under state law it is too late to amend the divorce decree, that Creditor holds no lien in the house or retirement account, and that the debt Creditor seeks to hold Debtor responsible for is an unsecured, in personam debt that is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. II. Analysis A. Jurisdiction A creditor's motion to modify the automatic stay for cause under § 362(d)(1)19 and Rule 4001(a) is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), over which this Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan funds. Regarding the readjustment of awarded rights in a retirement account, the Tenth Circuit affirmed stay relief allowing a debtor's ex-spouse to pursue a QDRO in the state court, even in the absence of an express QDRO in the divorce decree.43 In Carbaugh, as in this case, the debtor claimed that his ex-spouse did not have any 39 In re Dona"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2292332b-e40e-45be-969b-61e6abb02bb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10457789-10457789","title":"CourtListener opinion 10457789","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"894 F.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ons Order) in the state court.41 A QDRO is an order typically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan funds. Regarding the readjustment of awarded rights in a retirement account, the Tenth Circuit affirmed stay relief allowing a debtor's ex-spouse to pursue a QDRO in the state court, even in the absence of an express QDRO in the divorce decree.43 In Carbaugh, as in this case, the debtor cla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10458328 Extracted reporter citation: 721 F.3d 241. Docket: 1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10458328 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: m any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(2). Title 19 of the Health-General Article in the Maryland Code gover"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ded, shall be exempt from any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankrup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a408eae0-12e0-468e-9c6c-b20576a4021f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10458328-10458328","title":"CourtListener opinion 10458328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 F.3d 241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health.\" MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to \"(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988.\" MD."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10459314 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cracker. Extracted reporter citation: 573 U.S. 122. Docket: No. 14. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459314 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er\").1 The Consent Order provides for the Debtor to receive a distributive award of $22,677.31 to be paid through a Qualified Domestic Relations 1 The Trustee filed a copy of the Consent Order as an exhibit to his Objection. (Docket No. 14, Ex. A). Order (QDRO). As of the petition date, the funds remained in Mr. Myatt's retirement account. The Debtor listed the award in her bankruptcy schedules under the category \"other amounts someone owes you.\" (Docket No. 1). She also asserted an exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(9) and 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) in the total funds of both her individual retiremen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aim for Property Exemptions (Docket No. 14, the \"Objection\") filed by the chapter 7 trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The Trustee objected to the exemption that Catherine Mary Grossman Myatt (the \"Debtor') claimed in her interest in her former husband's 401(k) retirement account. The Debtor asserts that the interest, which totals $22,677.31, is fully exempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(9) and 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule the Objection, finding that the Debtor possesses an interest in her former husband's 401(k) account that is excluded from the bankruptcy estate. J"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 6). There is also a third category, divisible property, which is any real or personal property acquired by either spouse after the date of separation, but before the date of distribution. Id. By statute, marital property includes \"all vested and nonvested pension, retirement, and other deferred compensation rights[.]\" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(1). Only marital and divisible property are subject to equitable distribution in the event of divorce and there is a rebuttable presumption that property acquired after the date of marriage and before separation is marital property. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(1). Up"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f879a54a-3d72-4fb7-b0fd-61f6716be6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459314-10459314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 14","extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: bmitting this matter for ruling on the papers, including the Consent Order, as well as the arguments of counsel. The Court subsequently entered an order reopening the evidentiary record for the limited purpose of determining whether Mr. Myatt's account is ERISA-qualified. (Docket No. 22). In response to the order, the Trustee and Debtor's counsel stipulated and agreed that, based upon a review of the relevant documentation, Mr. Myatt's retirement plan \"is an ERISA-qualified 401(k) plan/account.\" (Docket No. 23). The Court accepts the stipulation of the parties on this issue and finds that Mr. Myatt possesses"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10459901 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.2d 1169. Docket: and of facts that are part of public records. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459901 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ing attorney fees on Baglio's personal credit card. On March 15, 2018, Baglio filed a motion to enforce the final decree. The motion resulted in several orders, all designed to get Newton to comply with the decree. An order entered on July 18, 2018, was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which assigned to Baglio 50% of Newton's pension, per the final decree. Another order entered that day directed Special Master Zenon Myszkowski4 to investigate and make recommendations to the Court regarding Newton's defaults under the final decree. Myszkowski filed his report and recommendation on November 12, 2018, recommending that the sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: L SECURITY, LLC, Defendants. OPINION Plaintiff Darrell Newton and Defendant Josephine Baglio agreed to the entry of a final decree dissolving their marriage. The decree, which apportioned their community property, included an equal division of Newton's pension plan. The decree also required Newton to make \"equalization payments\" to Baglio, pay certain community debts, and turn over to Baglio certain vehicles and other personal property. Newton made the first equalization payment. Thereafter, he defaulted in a number of material respects. After repeated attempts to get Newton to pay as agreed, in late 2020 the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ney fees on Baglio's personal credit card. On March 15, 2018, Baglio filed a motion to enforce the final decree. The motion resulted in several orders, all designed to get Newton to comply with the decree. An order entered on July 18, 2018, was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which assigned to Baglio 50% of Newton's pension, per the final decree. Another order entered that day directed Special Master Zenon Myszkowski4 to investigate and make recommendations to the Court regarding Newton's defaults under the final decree. Myszkowski filed his report and recommendation on November 12, 2018, recommending that the sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d053fa1e-8076-443b-9610-009889962754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459901-10459901","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and of facts that are part of public records","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Adv. no. 21-1016-t JOSEPHINE M. BAGLIO and TRIAD NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, Defendants. OPINION Plaintiff Darrell Newton and Defendant Josephine Baglio agreed to the entry of a final decree dissolving their marriage. The decree, which apportioned their community property, included an equal division of Newton's pension plan. The decree also required Newton to make \"equalization payments\" to Baglio, pay certain community debts, and turn over to Baglio certain vehicles and other personal property. Newton made the first equalization payment. Thereafter, he defaulted in a number of material respects. After repeated attempts"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2207106-918e-4a04-a002-295df6b5b855","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459911","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10459911 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459911 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2207106-918e-4a04-a002-295df6b5b855","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459911","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2207106-918e-4a04-a002-295df6b5b855","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459911","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: D-F. Debtors did not object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more \"hand"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2207106-918e-4a04-a002-295df6b5b855","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459911","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more \"hand holding\" than average.4 This is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2207106-918e-4a04-a002-295df6b5b855","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459911-10459911","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459911","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ted on Debtors' Schedules D-F. Debtors did not object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10459976 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.2d 1169. Docket: 22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: division of the TSP account. Debtor responded pro se to the Contempt Motion on November 14, 2022. Eight days later, he filed this chapter 13 case. Also on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the \"FERS QDRO\")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No simi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO In re: STEVEN D. HARRISON, Case No. 22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the Court is Racquel Harrison's Amended Motion to Determine that Stay Does Not Apply to Division of Retirement Account or, Alternatively, for Relief From Stay. To rule on the motion, the Court must construe a final divorce decree entered almost two years prepetition and determine its effect on Debtor's retirement account. The Court finds and concludes that the final decree divided all community property into the separate property of the divorcing parties, including the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: so on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the \"FERS QDRO\")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No similar QDRO was entered for the TSP account. Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan on December 16, 2022. The plan proposes to pay allowed unsecured claims 100% with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b020ec13-788f-47eb-a559-e9f1bd3cfb57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10459976-10459976","title":"CourtListener opinion 10459976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"605 F.2d 1169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ht days later, he filed this chapter 13 case. Also on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the \"FERS QDRO\")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No similar QDRO was entered for the TSP account. Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan on December 16, 2022. The plan proposes to pay a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10460289 Extracted reporter citation: 708 F.2d 865. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10460289 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the divorce, Debtor had a deferred compensation account with VALIC (the \"VALIC Account\"). The Divorce Judgment provided that \"pursuant to the terms of the in-Court Stipulation dated November 24, 2004 and as more specifically set forth therein, separate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [\"QDRO\"] (2) 2 The record consists of the Petition (the \"Petition\" at Doc. 1); chapter 13 Plan (the \"Plan\" at Doc. 2); Amended chapter 13 Plan (the \"Amended Plan\" at Doc. 19); Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan and Request for Additional Relief (the \"Plan Objection\" at Doc. 26); Creditor's Supplemental Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or signed by the Matrimonial Court addressing Creditor's interest in the VALIC Account. (Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 6). Without a QDRO in place, Debtor withdrew the entire VALIC Account balance over a period of time and transferred it to a VOYA Pershing IRA retirement account (\"VOYA Account\"). From July 2017 through September 2018, Debtor took out approximately $484,000.00 from the VOYA Account, deposited that money into his personal M&T Bank checking account (the \"M&T Account\") and closed the VOYA Account. No funds from or originating from the VALIC Account or any of Debtor's retirement funds were paid to Creditor. (See Sti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vorce, Debtor had a deferred compensation account with VALIC (the \"VALIC Account\"). The Divorce Judgment provided that \"pursuant to the terms of the in-Court Stipulation dated November 24, 2004 and as more specifically set forth therein, separate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [\"QDRO\"] (2) 2 The record consists of the Petition (the \"Petition\" at Doc. 1); chapter 13 Plan (the \"Plan\" at Doc. 2); Amended chapter 13 Plan (the \"Amended Plan\" at Doc. 19); Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan and Request for Additional Relief (the \"Plan Objection\" at Doc. 26); Creditor's Supplemental Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe8853f3-ce32-4bfc-90ea-eacb26319ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460289-10460289","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: onial Case by Creditor. Id. (\"The Court is cognizant of the fact that this bankruptcy case is defined by Debtor's ongoing matrimonial and familial dispute\"). As in many chapter 13 cases involving a divorced debtor, the primary debt was unpaid court-ordered equitable distribution. Considering Congress's express intention to permit this type of debt to be discharged in chapter 13 cases, the Court finds the filing of the Petition was not for a greedy or unworthy purpose. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a) and 523(a)(15). This is Debtor's first bankruptcy case, and he is contributing a portion of his Social Security income to make the paymen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10460341 Extracted case name: LLP v. HSBC. Extracted reporter citation: 521 F.3d 130. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10460341 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 's application for enforcement of the Amended Judgment of Divorce with regard to the transfer of marital retirement accounts was granted to the extent that Yao was directed to supply all information requested by Pension Actuaries Inc. for completion of the Qualified Domestic Relation Orders (\"QDRO(s)\") in this action by June 15, 2018. (Id. at 3– 4.) On July 31, 2018, Kao filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (\"Petition,\" Chapter 7 Case, ECF Doc. # 1.) The deadline to file a complaint objecting to Kao's discharge was extended by stipulation to February 28, 2019. (\"Stipulation Extending Time to Oppose Discharge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ve share of Yao's enhanced earning capacity (\"Defendant's Distributive Share\"). But the Amended Judgment of Divorce only required Yao to pay Kao after he receives Kao's payment. (Id. at 7–8.) The Amended Judgment of Divorce separately ordered a division of retirement accounts, child support, and counsel fees from Yao to Kao's former attorney. (Id. at 8–11.) 2 The Declaration filed as ECF Doc. # 24 is substantively similar to the Opposition, ECF Doc. # 27. Subsequently, Yao filed an application for a money judgment for the non-retirement equitable distribution and for counsel fees incurred. On June 1, 2018, the State Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Defendant's Distributive Share. Further, Kao's application for enforcement of the Amended Judgment of Divorce with regard to the transfer of marital retirement accounts was granted to the extent that Yao was directed to supply all information requested by Pension Actuaries Inc. for completion of the Qualified Domestic Relation Orders (\"QDRO(s)\") in this action by June 15, 2018. (Id. at 3– 4.) On July 31, 2018, Kao filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (\"Petition,\" Chapter 7 Case, ECF Doc. # 1.) The deadline to file a complaint objecting to Kao's discharge was extended by stipulation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23636ab-4594-4de7-adcc-29734f8f876f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10460341-10460341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10460341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 F.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: at 8.) Defendant further represents that a hearing was scheduled for January 30, 2020 in New York State Family Court regarding child support arrears owed by Plaintiff.6 (Opposition ¶ 6.) 5 Defendant filed two attachments under seal, containing a Proposed Domestic Relations Order (ECF Doc. # 27-2, Ex. A) and the Money Judgment Support Order and Violation of Support Order, and related Findings of Fact, dated October 8, 2019 (Id., Ex. B). 6 The automatic stay does not apply to a broad range of issues arising in the matrimonial action in State Court. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2). D. Reply to Summary Judgment Opposition Plaintiff's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87f39c52-7629-4449-99b4-70067aa182d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 F.3d 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10461157 Extracted reporter citation: 471 F.3d 391. Docket: in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461157 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87f39c52-7629-4449-99b4-70067aa182d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 F.3d 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87f39c52-7629-4449-99b4-70067aa182d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 F.3d 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: - 81). The Trustee points to the fact that Ms. Blakesley ignored three letters from Mr. Blakesley's divorce attorney in March, April and May 2019, concerning rollover of funds in her 401(k) and the need for Ms. Blakesley to cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (ECF AP No. 22-6). Here, it is undisputed that the only contact between the Trustee and Ms. Blakesley concerning this adversary proceeding was the delivery by regular first class mail of the Summons and Complaint. There was no pre-litigation demand letter.9 There were no orders issued by this Court, after service of the Summons and before entry of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87f39c52-7629-4449-99b4-70067aa182d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 F.3d 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): shed by Second Circuit precedent, the answer is yes. III. FACTS James Blakesley2 filed a petition under Chapter 7 on June 6, 2019. (Case No. 19-20566, ECF No. 1).3 In Schedule A/B of his petition, Mr. Blakesley listed his interest in Ms. Blakesley's 401(k) account in the amount of $90,000 arising out of a \"divorce property settlement\" (it also arose out of a Judgment of Divorce). (ECF BK No. 1, Sch. A/B ¶ 29). On Schedule C of his petition, Mr. Blakesley listed his interest in the funds in that 401(k) account as fully exempt, in the total amount of $90,000. (Id. at Sch. C). The docket in the bankruptcy cas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87f39c52-7629-4449-99b4-70067aa182d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461157-10461157","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 F.3d 391","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Trustee points to the fact that Ms. Blakesley ignored three letters from Mr. Blakesley's divorce attorney in March, April and May 2019, concerning rollover of funds in her 401(k) and the need for Ms. Blakesley to cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (ECF AP No. 22-6). Here, it is undisputed that the only contact between the Trustee and Ms. Blakesley concerning this adversary proceeding was the delivery by regular first class mail of the Summons and Complaint. There was no pre-litigation demand letter.9 There were no orders issued by this Court, after service of the Summons and before entry of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7536081-0e28-47f2-a470-7f5bf7ffad12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10461243 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461243 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7536081-0e28-47f2-a470-7f5bf7ffad12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7536081-0e28-47f2-a470-7f5bf7ffad12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ct agreed as to the contempt charge but remanded on the latter, stating \"[i]t would seem while laches does not bar collection of the original definite amount set forth in the 1994 judgment, it is arguable if it is available if the formula is applied to all retirement benefits Appellee has already received and/or will receive in the future.\" It remanded. Following remand, the trial court found laches was a defense. The wife appealed and the Fifth District determined Appellee's original legal obligation to Appellant as set forth in the trial court's December 1, 1994 Entry is not barred by laches. To find otherwise would"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7536081-0e28-47f2-a470-7f5bf7ffad12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: that balances the competing policies. Toki v. Toki, 2020 WL 261246 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). The appellate court applied laches to bar collection of interest during the period of the wife's inaction. In 1994, the wife was awarded a portion of her husband's pension, payable when he retired. He retired in 2002 and paid her $20,000.00, less than half the amount owed. In 2017, the wife filed contempt action and moved to construe the decree. The trial court found both barred by laches. The Fifth District agreed as to the contempt charge but remanded on the latter, stating \"[i]t would seem while laches does not bar col"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7536081-0e28-47f2-a470-7f5bf7ffad12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461243-10461243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e court is convinced that the decisions that exist were driven less by an understanding of the precedential case law and more by a desire to do equity. In one of the earlier cases, from 1889, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas considered whether a domestic relations order is subject to the dormancy statute, finding \"a decree for alimony, being a statutory judgment, and being, in all respects but one, an ordinary judgment at law, it is subject to the limitations imposed on ordinary judgments under [the dormancy statute].\" Mullane v. Folger, 10 Ohio Dec.Reprint 485, 487 (Hamilton Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. 1889). The Supreme Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10461262 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of factors figured into the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461262 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n this Note immediately due. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Ptacek individually executed a mortgage on his home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of \"the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant.\" According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor \"an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek's] bala"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of \"the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant.\" According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor \"an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek's] balance as of November 16, 2010.\" The QDRO stated that the lump sum payment of the $150,000 had to occur \"as soon as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: with full force to bankruptcy proceedings and \"the values underlying the doctrine[s]—judicial economy and prevention of inconsistent decisions—are particularly served by applying it to Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings.\" Trs. of Operating Eng'rs Local 324 Pension Fund v. Bourdow Contracting, Inc., 919 F.3d 368, 381 (6th Cir. 2019). Under the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must give \"a state court judgment the same preclusive effect that the judgment would have in a state court.\" In re Fordu, 201 F.3d at 703 (citing Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 38"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d75187ef-3ad2-477b-8112-36c79b8f1ecb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461262-10461262","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461262","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors figured into the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: al balance and interest on this Note immediately due. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Ptacek individually executed a mortgage on his home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of \"the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant.\" According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor \"an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10461879 Extracted reporter citation: 748 F.3d 142. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461879 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h a non-dischargeable ownership interest in the 401(k) that is not dischargeable under any provision of the Code and for the imposition of a constructive trust based upon a theory of unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland granting her a vested property right in \"50% of the Defendant's Total Account Balance\" in the 401(k) as of January 16, 2018. Compl. 6–10, 13 16, 33, 39, 42. Plaintiff has also pleaded that the Defendant came into possession of that vested property interest. Compl. 12, 15– 16, 18, 38–39. Lastly,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d. 663, 668 (1980) (\"The purpose of the remedy is to prevent the unjust enrichment of the holder of the property.\"); Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 259, 96 A.3d 94, 103 (2014) (concluding that the court \"has authority to impose a constructive trust on retirement benefits [already] received by a surviving spouse when . . . circumstances [] give the former spouse a ‘higher equitable call' to the promised benefits.\"). enriched if he was permitted to retain it. Compl. 14–17, 25, 33, 35, 37–39, 41–42. For the foregoing reasons, although the § 523(a)(15) theory as pleaded is incorrect, the Plaintiff has stated a plausible c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d Complaint to Determine Dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(15), 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), and 523(a)(4)1 (the \"Complaint\"). In her Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a determination that she holds a non- dischargeable property interest in the Defendant's 401(k) account and certain restricted stock of CoStar Group, Inc. (the \"Stock\") or, in the alternative, that the Defendant owes her a debt that should be excepted from discharge under the provisions cited above. Plaintiff's Complaint includes the following five counts: (I) Denial of Discharge Regarding 401(k) Account Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15); (II)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c001b-59d1-43fb-9a6d-44b8c337e632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10461879-10461879","title":"CourtListener opinion 10461879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 F.3d 142","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: schargeable ownership interest in the 401(k) that is not dischargeable under any provision of the Code and for the imposition of a constructive trust based upon a theory of unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland granting her a vested property right in \"50% of the Defendant's Total Account Balance\" in the 401(k) as of January 16, 2018. Compl. 6–10, 13 16, 33, 39, 42. Plaintiff has also pleaded that the Defendant came into possession of that vested property interest. Compl. 12, 15– 16, 18, 38–39. Lastly,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10462250 Extracted reporter citation: 868 F.2d 614. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462250 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cree of Divorce7 which provided, inter alia, that the Defendant would receive the sum of $182,094.00 from her ex-husband's pension plan at the Ingersoll-Rand Company and the divorce court implemented that division by signing on that same date a First Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the \"QDRO\") which generally delineated that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ted that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the Defendant authorized a partial distribution from the QDRO retirement account which, after federal tax withholdings of $47,058,83, resulted in her receipt of net proceeds in the amount of $100,000.00.9 This $100,000.00 check was later deposited by the Defendant into an IRA account managed by Fidelity Investments (th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cified the means by which the growing sum of attorneys' fees would ultimately be addressed. Among the sources of payment identified in the SFA was any interest which the Defendant subsequently obtained through the divorce action in her soon-to-be ex-spouse's pension plan, which the Defendant agreed to liquidate within five business days of receipt in order to pay any outstanding fees to the Plaintiff. The SFA further required the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff any sales proceeds which the Defendant might realize from the sale of her family's homestead through the divorce action. The specified sources did not preclu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fb19d29-1057-4d7f-abb9-4327fd3f39c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462250-10462250","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"868 F.2d 614","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vorce7 which provided, inter alia, that the Defendant would receive the sum of $182,094.00 from her ex-husband's pension plan at the Ingersoll-Rand Company and the divorce court implemented that division by signing on that same date a First Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the \"QDRO\") which generally delineated that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e65e25f-18ab-40d3-8efa-6db0a285139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462451","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10462451 Extracted reporter citation: 500 F.3d 344. Docket: maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462451 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e65e25f-18ab-40d3-8efa-6db0a285139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462451","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e65e25f-18ab-40d3-8efa-6db0a285139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462451","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rd but was not part of the summary judgment the reason for the dismissal of the Defamation Suit and attorney's fee award was the Release in the Divorce Decree—i.e., any of the claims asserted in the Defamation Suit had been released.4 B. The Post-Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e65e25f-18ab-40d3-8efa-6db0a285139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462451-10462451","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462451","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: -Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by the Family Court after the Divorce Decree. The Family Court went on to state that \"Husband [MJP] shall pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission and any all [sic] applicable Federal Income Taxes and State Taxes associate with the husband's receipt of thes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613f9005-2a68-4f92-85a8-5b795ecb8fc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462455","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10462455 Extracted reporter citation: 500 F.3d 344. Docket: maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462455 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613f9005-2a68-4f92-85a8-5b795ecb8fc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462455","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613f9005-2a68-4f92-85a8-5b795ecb8fc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462455","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Memorandum Opinion makes it very clear that the reason for the dismissal of the Defamation Suit and attorney's fee award was the Release in the Divorce Decree—i.e., any of the claims asserted in the Defamation Suit had been released. B. The Post-Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the 2 The court takes judicial notice of this opinion that is available in the public record but was not part of the summary judgment evidence. [Courts may take judicial noti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613f9005-2a68-4f92-85a8-5b795ecb8fc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10462455-10462455","title":"CourtListener opinion 10462455","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro","extracted_reporter_citation":"500 F.3d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l from the Family Court was transferred to Texarkana from the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001. Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by the Family Court after the Divorce Decree. The Family Court went on to state that \"Husband [MJP] shall pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission and any all [sic] applicable Federal Income Taxes and State Taxes associate with the husband's receipt of these"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10463930 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHELSEY JAON NUNEZ AND ELIAS NUNEZ. Extracted reporter citation: 733 N.W.2d 683. Docket: 23-1452. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10463930 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arital portion of the pension—neither party seeks the alternative relief of valuing the \"IPERS account at the refund value as of the time of trial and order[ing] a property equalization payment from\" him to Chelsey \"in lieu of dividing the IPERS account via a QDRO.\" In re Marriage of Boland-Chambers, No. 14-0920, 2015 WL 1849501, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2015) (finding an equalization payment more equitable given that \"IPERS retirement options and the circumstances of the parties could be drastically different by the time the parties retire\"). Because neither Chelsey nor Elias seeks this alternative arrangement,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecree fairly distributed tax burdens and benefits, we affirm. Pension Survivorship Rights. Elias's final property-division challenge relates to his IPERS pension. Elias does not challenge that Chelsey is entitled to her share of the marital portion of his retirement benefits under the Benson formula while he is living or as a beneficiary if he dies before retiring.3 But he asserts the decree went too far in granting Chelsey survivorship rights by requiring he designate her as the contingent annuitant to receive fifty percent of his benefits for her entire life if he dies after retiring and starting to receive benefits. In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arties to file separate tax returns for 2022—successful collaboration seems unlikely—and the court equitably allocated credits and deductions. Third, we agree with Elias that the decree went too far in awarding Chelsey survivorship rights in Elias's IPERS pension, as the Benson formula protects her future interests and the short length of the marriage tips the balance of equities against a right of survivorship. Fourth, the visitation schedule is in the children's best interest because they are served by its consistency and it gives them meaningful parenting time with Elias. Fifth, we see no gross abuse of discr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa62714d-3365-44e4-9b46-f0228543e1cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463930-10463930","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463930","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-1452","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: tant to receive fifty percent of his benefits for her entire life if he dies after retiring and starting to receive benefits. In support, Elias points to the short duration of the marriage and his intent to remarry and one day designate a new spouse as his surviving spouse. Chelsey counters that without being the contingent annuitant, there is no guarantee she will receive the full share of her benefits.4 3 In In re Marriage of Benson, our supreme court adopted a formula for determining a spouse's \"share of any payout of a matured benefit from\" the other spouse's \"pension plan.\" In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10463932 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HOLLY LYNN TRULSON AND TIMOTHY TODD TRULSON Upon the Petition of HOLLY LYNN. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 23-0732. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10463932 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: evidence of their value, is to divide them using the Benson formula.\"). Under this method, \"the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mature.\" Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 250. \"The fraction represents the portion of the pension attributable to the parties' joint marital efforts. The numerator in the fraction is the number of years the pensioner accrued benefits under the plan during the marriage, and the denominator is the total number of yea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erty division, the parties had a trial and the district court divided the property in its decree dissolving the marriage. Timothy appeals, claiming the division of property was not equitable. More specifically, the appeal focuses primarily on the parties' retirement accounts and benefits. As to the nature and value of the parties' retirement accounts and benefits, at the time of dissolution, Holly had an individual retirement account (IRA) valued at $137,000. Timothy had a Roth IRA, which the parties agreed to value at $115,906.1 In addition to her IRA, Holly had accumulated retirement benefits through her work. As a pub"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d. Retirement accounts and 4 benefits are divisible marital property. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006). As such, they need to be valued. In this case, the sticking point is valuing Holly's IPERS benefits. There are two types of pension plans—defined-benefit plans and defined-contribution plans. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Iowa 1996). The difference between the two is that under a defined-benefit plan the future benefit is specified in advance based on a formula or schedule whereas under a defined-contribution plan the contributions are specified without a predetermi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d66fc3c7-6360-4fed-b6e2-8bc16fd0f18c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10463932-10463932","title":"CourtListener opinion 10463932","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0732","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of their value, is to divide them using the Benson formula.\"). Under this method, \"the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mature.\" Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 250. \"The fraction represents the portion of the pension attributable to the parties' joint marital efforts. The numerator in the fraction is the number of years the pensioner accrued benefits under the plan during the marriage, and the denominator is the total number of yea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b637aa-7499-46b2-8041-8e744c658360","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10466032","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10466032 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10466032 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b637aa-7499-46b2-8041-8e744c658360","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10466032","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b637aa-7499-46b2-8041-8e744c658360","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10466032","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ached to the agreement listed the separate prop- erty, income, and debts of Christina, including the house in which she was living prior to the marriage; exhibit B attached to the agreement listed the separate property, income, and debts of Daniel, including \"Retirement plan: Con Agra $1,000.\" Daniel and Christina were married in 2008 and have four children. On March 31, 2022, Christina filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage. - 884 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 32 Nebraska Appellate Reports DIBUONO-GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ Cite as 32 Neb. App. 881 1. Christina Seeks Protection Order On March 22, 2022, C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b637aa-7499-46b2-8041-8e744c658360","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10466032","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ded to Christina ($54,761 + $3,250) with a subtotal amount to balance of $33,898 ($125,807 − $58,011 = $67,796 ÷ 2 = $33,898). Including the amount owed under the temporary order of $5,588.35, Daniel is ordered to transfer $39,486.35 to Christina by qualified domestic relations order. (b) Daniel's Retirement Account Daniel argues the district court erred by classifying only $1,000 of his retirement fund as nonmarital. He contends that under the terms of the premarital agreement, the entirety of his retirement account should have been classified as a nonmarital asset. We disagree. Absent the premarital agreement, Daniel's nonmarital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b637aa-7499-46b2-8041-8e744c658360","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10466032-10466032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10466032","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: eets 32 Nebraska Appellate Reports DIBUONO-GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ Cite as 32 Neb. App. 881 Christina Dibuono-Gonzalez, appellee, v. Daniel Gonzalez, appellant. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed May 21, 2024. No. A-23-439. 1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10469835 Extracted reporter citation: 759 F.2d 9. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10469835 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: George's County, Maryland stated that \"the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . .\" Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was submitted and accepted by OPM in 1996. Id. at 2. The appellant filed the instant Board appeal challenging OPM's decision regarding the disbursement of funds from his retirement annuity to his former spou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Neese v. Office of Personnel Management, 61 M.S.P.R. 70, 71-74 (1994) (finding that, despite 4 The appellant provides a March 14, 1996 letter in which OPM informed him that his former spouse had submitted a divorce decree awarding her a portion of his future retirement benefits and that, as soon as it received a court-certified copy of the divorce decree and the QDRO, it would determine the court order acceptable for processing. PFR File, Tab 6 at 9-10. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: § 1201.113(b). BACKGROUND On August 7, 1995, the appellant divorced his spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6-8. The divorce decree issued by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland stated that \"the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . .\" Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was submitted and accepted by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9db9597-eef3-45fc-9471-e9772ad555f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10469835-10469835","title":"CourtListener opinion 10469835","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"759 F.2d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e Board's final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). BACKGROUND On August 7, 1995, the appellant divorced his spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6-8. The divorce decree issued by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland stated that \"the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . .\" Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10473907 Docket: 368469 Lapeer Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10473907 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aintiff appeals by right the judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nt. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from plaintiff's plan, was never entered.1 In March 2022, plaintiff ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ere entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from plaintiff's plan, was never entered.1 In March 2022, plaintiff retired and began collecting monthly pension payments and retirement benefits. Defendant subsequently learned of plaintiff's retirement and discovered that the QDRO regarding those benefits had not been entered. Defendant moved the trial court to enter a QDRO regarding those benefits as provided for in the divorce judgment; the order was entered 1 The parties agree that the QDRO was prepared but nev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5abeace5-0cc5-41e3-88f2-0ec43d3238d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473907-10473907","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473907","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368469 Lapeer Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: peals by right the judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10473931 Extracted case name: In re ESTATE OF JENNIFER L. FOWLER. SHELLIE SPACIL. Extracted reporter citation: 447 F3d 967. Docket: 365600 St. Clair Probate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10473931 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ters' Commentary, (ICLE, February 2023 Update), p 631: Under the provisions of subsections (2), (3), and (4), the liability stated in subsection (1) does not apply to trusts that are a part of a qualified retirement plan and does not impair rights under a qualified domestic relations order. Additionally, assets are not to be used to pay the items described in subsection (1) if those assets would not have been subject to creditors' claims if paid to a testamentary trust or to other than the probate estate. Similarly, assets received from a trust that was not revocable by the decedent/settlor are not exposed to the liability described in s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which named Jennifer's trust as the beneficiary. After Jennifer's death, Metropolitan Life paid a claim on that policy and disbursed $438,385.20 to Jennifer's trust. Jennifer also participated in her employer's 401(k) retirement plan, known as the DTE Electric Company Savings & Stock Ownership Plan for Employees Represented by Local 223 of 2 This Court in its previous opinion affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of Helen's estate from the wrongful-death action. Brooks, unpub op at 1, 10. -3- the Utility Workers Union of America (\"Savings & Stock Plan\"). The terms of the Sav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: from reaching the lump-sum payment of the remaining 401(k) account funds. State laws that relate to qualified employee benefit plans are superseded by ERISA. Selflube, Inc v JJMT, Inc, 278 Mich App 298, 305; 750 NW2d 245 (2008). ERISA provides that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 USC 1056(d)(1). ERISA's antialienation provision only obligates protecting benefits up to the point of payment. Once a pension plan has sent payments to the beneficiary, relinquishing control over the payments, attachment of those funds by a creditor does not invo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddfa8c3-0a52-44d5-8eae-23aa029937f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10473931-10473931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10473931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"365600 St. Clair Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"447 F3d 967","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: sidered to be a trust described in subsection (1). The probate court ruled that Jennifer's 401(k) account funds were not available to pay her creditors because the funds are part of a plan complying with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq. There is no dispute that the Savings & Stock Plan is a qualified 401(k) account that was intended to provide Jennifer with retirement income during her lifetime. However, the Savings & Stock Plan provides that, after Jennifer's death, any remaining funds are to be paid to the fund beneficiary's estate in a lump sum if there is no survi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a42f234-a83e-460b-aa52-634b21ae44d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047448","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1047448 Extracted case name: ROY L. HAMILTON v. ELIZABETH K. HAMILTON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047448 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a42f234-a83e-460b-aa52-634b21ae44d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047448","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a42f234-a83e-460b-aa52-634b21ae44d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047448","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an and to Mr. Hamilton's child support obligations. This appeal arises from a petition to modify custody filed by Mr. Hamilton in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County in August 2010; Ms. Hamilton's notice of lodging of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on September 2, 2010, and Mr. Hamilton's motion to re- evaluate income assignment; the parties' cross-petitions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a General"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a42f234-a83e-460b-aa52-634b21ae44d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047448","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: itions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a General Motors pension on September 14, 2010. By order entered October 7, 2010, the trial court found there had been no substantial change of circumstances that warranted modification of custody. The trial court awarded Ms. Hamilton attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000 for defending against Mr. Hamilton's petition as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), and deni"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a42f234-a83e-460b-aa52-634b21ae44d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047448-1047448","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047448","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ations to the parenting plan and to Mr. Hamilton's child support obligations. This appeal arises from a petition to modify custody filed by Mr. Hamilton in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County in August 2010; Ms. Hamilton's notice of lodging of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on September 2, 2010, and Mr. Hamilton's motion to re- evaluate income assignment; the parties' cross-petitions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a Ge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1047693 Extracted case name: PEGGY DIANA SCHROER v. RICHARD MICHAEL SCHROER. Extracted reporter citation: 902 S.W.2d 918. Docket: M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047693 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: between the parties. Two-thirds of Husband's UPS pension was also ordered to be divided equally between the parties through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's 401(k) account was likewise to be equally divided between the parties, through a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Neither party was awarded alimony. The trial court's decision was memorialized in a Final Decree, entered on June 7, 2010. This appeal followed. -5- III. A NALYSIS A. Property Division in Divorce Cases Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121(a)(1) authorizes the trial court in actions for divorce or for legal separation to equitably divide, distribute,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d $13.10 per hour. She was preparing to take a certification test, and she anticipated that if she passed the test and obtained certification, she would receive a 9% pay raise. Her 2009 income tax return showed an adjusted gross income of $30,720.2 Her 401(k) retirement account had a value of $2,846 on December 31, 2009. The forty-seven year old Husband earned a high school diploma and attended college for two years. He began working for United Parcel Service about eleven years before the parties married. He continued working there even after he was diagnosed with an advanced form of throat cancer in 1998. He underwent surgery,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of his cancer and of its treatment, he tires easily and only has energy for about three hours of activity a day. He was classified as totally disabled in 2007, and began receiving social security disability checks of about $2,010 per month. He also receives a pension from UPS that adds $3,040 to his monthly income. The testimony of the parties shows that the Husband attempted to keep his finances separate from Wife's as much as possible during their marriage. In 1986, Husband inherited $171,448 from his father, and he placed the money in a separate J.C. Bradford account. In 2002, his mother died, and he inherited $35,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02027f30-cbfb-41db-a3f4-556f3ff33c34","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047693-1047693","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): was paid $13.10 per hour. She was preparing to take a certification test, and she anticipated that if she passed the test and obtained certification, she would receive a 9% pay raise. Her 2009 income tax return showed an adjusted gross income of $30,720.2 Her 401(k) retirement account had a value of $2,846 on December 31, 2009. The forty-seven year old Husband earned a high school diploma and attended college for two years. He began working for United Parcel Service about eleven years before the parties married. He continued working there even after he was diagnosed with an advanced form of throat cancer in 1998. He"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a222a29-c29e-45ea-8823-f4680e38fd55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"43 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1047704 Extracted case name: JEANETTE HILL v. MICHAEL LESTER HILL. Extracted reporter citation: 43 S.W.3d 918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047704 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a222a29-c29e-45ea-8823-f4680e38fd55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"43 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a222a29-c29e-45ea-8823-f4680e38fd55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"43 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lee/Mother's petition to change the surnames of the two minor children that were born to the marriage; (2) denial of Appellant/Father's petition to grant him visitation with the minor children; and (3) entry of an order requiring Appellant/Father to execute a qualified domestic relations order to effectuate the trial court's award of assets as child support. Finding no error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded J. S TEVEN S TAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which A LAN E. H IGHERS, P. J., W. S., and D AVID R. F ARMER, J., joined. Michael Lester Hill, Pikevill"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a222a29-c29e-45ea-8823-f4680e38fd55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"43 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2005, the trial court divided the parties' marital estate and established child support. The trial court noted that Mr. Hill's incarceration was taken into account in its decision to award assets as child support. These assets included Mr. Hill's share of his 401k account. No appeal was taken from either the order granting the divorce, or from the October 6, 2005 order dividing marital assets and setting child support. On April 23, 2008, Ms. Hill filed a petition to change her surname, as well as the surnames of the parties' minor children. Mr. Hill opposed the petition. On July 2, 2009, Mr. Hill filed a petition t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a222a29-c29e-45ea-8823-f4680e38fd55","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047704-1047704","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"43 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 's petition to change the surnames of the two minor children that were born to the marriage; (2) denial of Appellant/Father's petition to grant him visitation with the minor children; and (3) entry of an order requiring Appellant/Father to execute a qualified domestic relations order to effectuate the trial court's award of assets as child support. Finding no error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded J. S TEVEN S TAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which A LAN E. H IGHERS, P. J., W. S., and D AVID R. F ARMER, J., joined. Michael Lester Hill, Pikevill"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1047953 Extracted case name: UNA P. IRVIN v. ERNEST J. IRVIN. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047953 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: remand. However, based upon our lack of jurisdiction, we cannot adjudicate these matters. Ambiguities in the Trial Court's Order Mr. Irvin asserts as his first issue that the trial court erred in not entering a Qualified -12- Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as provided for in paragraph four of the memorandum of understanding, which memorandum was incorporated into the trial court's order. See paragraph four of the court's order. Mr. Irvin couches his argument as a contract issue, i.e., the court did not properly enforce the memorandum of understanding between the parties. In her brief, Ms. Irvin contends tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of the trial court's order, supra, Judge Gasaway refers to a stipulation reached by the parties and filed with the court on September 14, 2009. There is only one document in the appellate record that is titled \"Stipulatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r the Thrift Savings Plan [\"TSP\"] that is closest to the face balance of $36,000.00, as of the date of this agreement. This is to equalize equity in the marital residence. 3. The Wife will receive twenty-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd31b828-0b01-4977-98f4-53b4f5bec1f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1047953-1047953","title":"CourtListener opinion 1047953","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ce at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of the trial court's order, supra, Judge Gasaway refers to a stipulation reached by the parties and filed with the court on September 14, 2009. There is only one document in the appellate record that is titled \"Stipulation.\" This document, which appears several times in the record, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: -8- 1. That"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1048137 Extracted case name: PATRICIA ANN GHO MASSEY v. GREGORY JOEL CASALS. Extracted reporter citation: 315 S.W.3d 788. Docket: W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048137 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105 (Supp. 2010). This provision is limited by subsection 105(c), which provides that, any plan described in subsection 105(b), except a public plan under subsection 105(a), is not exempt from the claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order. Thus, subject to statutory limitations, Mr. Casals' accounts with E*Trade are exempt from garnishment to satisfy a judgment for attorney's fees if they constitute a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code. In his brief to this Court, Mr. Casals asserts that the undisputed proof in this case is that his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: PATRICIA ANN GHO MASSEY v. GREGORY JOEL CASALS Direct Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County No. F7887 Herbert Lane, Special Judge No. W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV - Filed May 3, 2011 Appellant filed a motion to quash garnishment of his individual retirement accounts to satisfy an award of attorney's fees to Appellee, asserting the accounts were exempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 26-2-105 and 26-2-111. The trial court denied the motion to quash. We reverse. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Reversed and Remanded D AVID R. F ARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: essee: (1) The debtor's right to receive: (A) A social security benefit, unemployment compensation, a Families First program benefit or a local public assistance benefit; (B) A veterans' benefit; (C) A disability, illness, or unemployment benefit, or a pension that vests as a result of disability; (D) To the same extent that earnings are exempt pursuant to § 26-2-106, a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of death, age or length of service, unless: (i) Such plan or contract was established by or under the -4- auspices of an insider that empl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3913da09-8a08-429b-9d0a-7a8b74d79475","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048137-1048137","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"315 S.W.3d 788","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989); In re Bowman, 109 B.R. 789 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990); and In re Vandenberg, 276 B.R. 581 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001), stands for the proposition that IRA accounts are \"absolutely exempt\" under the statutes. The Martin court determined that ERISA did not preempt the Tennessee statutes and that an IRA that qualified under section 408(a) of the Internal Revenue Code constituted a \"retirement account\" for the purpose of the Tennessee statutes. In re Martin, 102 B.R. at 645. The Bowman court concluded that a \"retirement plan\" as referenced in section 26-2-105(b) (then codified at 26-2-104(b)) included a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1048219 Extracted case name: ANTHONY V. JACKSON v. GINGER JACKSON. Extracted reporter citation: 861 S.W.2d 230. Docket: M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048219 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mother filed motions requesting that the trial court enter either a final order or a QDRO to resolve the matter. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 31, 2004, in which it found, \"from all the testimony and the evidence presented,\" that the value of Mother's pension on November 12, 2001, was $46,144, and the total value of Father's accounts as of November 12, 2001, was $139,737.2 Therefore, the court determined, the pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s on November 12, 2001.\" The final decree \"further directed the parties [to] prepare an appropriate qualified domestic relations order providing for an equal division of these assets or in the alternative to allow the parties to resolve any disparity in their retirement plans with a cash payout.\" After the final decree was entered, the parties attended a settlement conference and attempted to resolve all of their differences, including the provision of their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mothe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the parties to resolve any disparity in their retirement plans with a cash payout.\" After the final decree was entered, the parties attended a settlement conference and attempted to resolve all of their differences, including the provision of their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mother filed motions requesting that the trial court enter either a final order or a QDRO to resolve the matter. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 31, 2004, in which it found, \"from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df003606-dcc5-4e05-9646-22fbc1876bcc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048219-1048219","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048219","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): final decree entered December 28, 2001. Although the final decree of divorce is not included in the record before us, a subsequent order entered by the trial court states that the final decree \"directed the parties to ascertain the fair market value of their 401K plans and determine the value of [Father's] Sverdrup savings plan and of his Jacobs stock holdings as of the close of business on November 12, 2001.\" The final decree \"further directed the parties [to] prepare an appropriate qualified domestic relations order providing for an equal division of these assets or in the alternative to allow the parties to resol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1048228 Extracted case name: RONNIE GALE GILL v. NANCY JANE GILL. Extracted reporter citation: 16 S.W.3d 356. Docket: W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048228 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the stress of the work, anxiety about being fired, and his physical and mental condition. In anticipation of his retirement, on March 19, 2009, Husband filed a petition for termination of his alimony obligation. In the petition, Husband asserted that he 1 A qualified domestic relations order was entered to enforce this obligation. -2- no longer had the same earning capacity that he had at the time of the parties' divorce. He also alleged that Wife's economic situation had improved. In approximately May-June 2009, Husband received a \"buyout\" offer from Goodyear, that is, a lump sum payment in exchange for his agreement to retire early. Husba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: -121(I) provides that the following factors are to be considered during a proceeding for modification of alimony: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (2) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each (continued...) -7- The trial judge determined that Husband's retirement from Goodyear significantly reduced his ability to pay alimony, and thus constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances. This finding was supported by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: or which he would assume the repayment of an outstanding loan from that account. Wife was awarded the marital residence, the 1995 Dodge Caravan automobile, and the associated indebtedness on both. She was also awarded a one-half interest in Husband's Goodyear pension plan.1 The trial court also awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $600 per month, finding that she was economically disadvantaged, had no realistic prospect for rehabilitation, and that Husband had the ability to pay support. After the divorce, Wife remained in the marital home, and the parties' adult daughter continued to live with her. Wife con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbaa4ec0-68b0-447d-94d3-716a8c239f6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048228-1048228","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"16 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 000 price differential in cash. Brenda said she and Husband had no house payment or car payment. Husband testified that, since the buyout, his only income was his pension check, a net income of $1275 per month. Husband said he cannot withdraw monies from his 401(k) until he reaches the age of fifty-nine and a half years old, and he cannot draw Social Security benefits until age sixty-two. Prior to the buyout, Husband's income from Goodyear was approximately $60,000 per year. Husband testified at length about his various health problems. He was previously hospitalized for kidney stones twice, suffers from bursitis, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1048239 Extracted case name: JR. v. SUSAN M. STIEL. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048239 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 22761 James G. Martin III, Judge No. M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 16, 2011 This post divorce appeal arises from the lack of symmetry between the parties' 1995 Final Divorce Decree and a 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband's retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed F RANK G. C LEMENT, J R., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which P ATRICIA J. C OTTRELL, P.J., M.S., and A NDY D. B ENNETT, J., joined. James D. Helton II, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Anthony F. Stiel, Jr. Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ions Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband's retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691cb938-e0ad-4b2d-b0a8-71fedb354548","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1048239-1048239","title":"CourtListener opinion 1048239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: M. Krauskopf and Sharon Burgees Seiling, A Pilot Study on Marital Power as an Influence in Division of Pension Benefits at Divorce of Long Term Marriages, 1996 J. Disp. Resol. 169, 173 (1996)); see also Albert Feuer, Who is Entitled to Survivor Benefits from ERISA Plans?, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 919 (2007).13 We, therefore, find that Wife's reliance on 42 U.S.C. §1055 is misplaced. The question here is whether the survivor benefit was included, based upon the language in the Final Decree, in the award of benefits to Wife. Stated another way, was the survivor benefit marital property separate and apart from the pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fad63e45-e320-47f6-81c0-cfb04bd7721f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487587","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10487587 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. NATALIE THRYPHENIA COLLINS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: AG No. 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487587 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fad63e45-e320-47f6-81c0-cfb04bd7721f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487587","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fad63e45-e320-47f6-81c0-cfb04bd7721f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487587-10487587","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487587","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: anction, this Court considered the attorney's prior disciplinary history, which included a 30-day suspension and two reprimands. Id. at 232–33. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hill, 398 Md. 95, 101–04 (2007), the attorney failed to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order in one client matter, failed to timely prepare and submit a consent order in another matter, and failed to respond to Bar Counsel's request for information, in violation of MLRPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b) and 8.4(d). This 5 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (\"MLRPC\") were renamed the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Profess"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10487670 Extracted case name: JAY SALKINI v. IMAN SALKINI. Extracted reporter citation: 761 A.2d 949. Docket: 13-C-15-102131 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487670 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: L PROPERTY – DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS. In a case in which the circuit court determined that husband's retirement account was marital property that should be divided equally as of the date of divorce, the court did not abuse its discretion in entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that provided that the amount to be transferred to the wife would be 50% of the balance in the plan on the date of divorce adjusted for investment earnings or losses on wife's share from the date of divorce to the date of transfer of wife's interest into a separate account. Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-C-15-102131 REPORTED IN THE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: repeated demands, [Husband] refuses to sign the attached QDRO. The attached QDRO is in compliance with the Amended Judgment of Divorce entered on February 23, 2016. 4. That [Husband] is the sole owner of Tecore, Inc. and controls distributions from the retirement plan. 3 5. That given [Husband's] refusal to cooperate in executing the QDRO, [Wife] is in need of the Court's execution of the proposed QDRO without [Husband's] signature. Paragraph 3 of Wife's proposed QDRO was worded as follows: 3. AMOUNT OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S BENEFITS. (a) The Alternate Payee's [i.e., Wife's] interest in the Plan shall be 50% (fifty"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nson, Clerk In 2016, Jay Salkini (\"Husband\"), appellant, and Iman Salkini (\"Wife\"), appellee, were divorced by order of the Circuit Court for Howard County. This appeal is limited to the question of whether the investment earnings that accrued in Husband's 401(k) account subsequent to the date of divorce should have been divided between Husband and Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), or whether all investment earnings in that account after the date of the divorce should be considered Husband's sole property. The Circuit Court for Howard County, which had ruled in the judgment of divo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbe1973a-83c5-460f-8df1-c0b76c586b54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487670-10487670","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-C-15-102131 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"761 A.2d 949","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: rement plan. 3 5. That given [Husband's] refusal to cooperate in executing the QDRO, [Wife] is in need of the Court's execution of the proposed QDRO without [Husband's] signature. Paragraph 3 of Wife's proposed QDRO was worded as follows: 3. AMOUNT OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S BENEFITS. (a) The Alternate Payee's [i.e., Wife's] interest in the Plan shall be 50% (fifty percent) of the Participant's Total Vested Account Balance in the Plan, valued as of February 23, 2016 (\"Valuation Date\"). The Alternate Payee interest shall be adjusted for investment earnings or losses on her share from the valuation date to the date of segr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10487962 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF COLLEEN KENT. Docket: 2-19-0905 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487962 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rties' residence was valued at about $234,000, and the net equity was about $20,000. Foreclosure proceedings commenced on April 24, 2019. The trial court noted that, pursuant to earlier orders, a portion of Luis's 401(k) plan was to be divided pursuant to a QDRO and that funds necessary to bring the mortgage current were to be paid from these funds. The court noted that Colleen wished to remain in the marital residence, and Luis petitioned to sell it, because he could not continue to pay his support obligations and the mortgage. Colleen testified that she hoped to qualify to refinance the mortgage. ¶ 37 The co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f the court. Justices Bridges and Brennan concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in entering various rulings in this marriage dissolution case, including orders concerning the division of marital property, the valuation of retirement benefits, and attorney fees. Affirmed. ¶2 Petitioner, Colleen Kent, appeals from the trial court's order, dissolving her marriage to respondent, Luis Cortez. She challenges several of the trial court's rulings, including those concerning the division of marital property, valuation of retirement benefits, and attorney fees. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND 2020 IL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Nevertheless, the court determined that the document was turned over prior to trial, not after trial. It also determined that application of the Hunt formula was correct, because it can be used for 401(k) plans, which are \"arguably not a lot different from pension plans.\" Also, the court noted that the argument was raised after the court had already ruled. ¶ 47 The trial court also denied Colleen's motion to reconsider, finding that the Hunt formula applies to 401(k) plans. Further, it was \"discoverable, and could have been discovered through diligence on the part of petitioner's attorney. I don't know what reaso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b5cd45-915f-4ff5-a8dc-d32a8bba8d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10487962-10487962","title":"CourtListener opinion 10487962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0905 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ted that his monthly income was $8,673 (reflecting 2018 income). He currently earns $8,804 per month in gross income. Luis works for United Airlines and is eligible for an annual bonus; when paid, it is paid out in the first quarter of the year. His United 401(k) plan account balance in the first quarter of 2019 was $286,255.17. Luis began working at United on October 27, 1997, and began participating in the 401(k) plan on that date. He has regularly contributed to the plan since commencement of his employment. He has taken out two loans from the plan to pay bills and expenses. The first loan, in October 2014,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d864762e-fc9f-46f2-824f-f9b3f0b594c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10488421 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heinrich. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10488421 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d864762e-fc9f-46f2-824f-f9b3f0b594c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d864762e-fc9f-46f2-824f-f9b3f0b594c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: re hand delivered to Sterk on August 10, 2018, at noon. Later in the day on August 10, Keane filed a notice of court date for motion indicating a November 20, 2018, date for a hearing on the fee petition, and a copy of a motion seeking a revision in her qualified domestic relations order entered in her dissolution proceeding. Proof of delivery for those documents was left blank. ¶ 10 Keane appeared before the court on August 10, 2018, and sought a continuance for the August 28 hearing. Sterk was not present. As presented in her motion, Keane argued she could not be in Illinois on August 28 because her daughter was scheduled to start"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d864762e-fc9f-46f2-824f-f9b3f0b594c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488421-10488421","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: livered to Sterk on August 10, 2018, at noon. Later in the day on August 10, Keane filed a notice of court date for motion indicating a November 20, 2018, date for a hearing on the fee petition, and a copy of a motion seeking a revision in her qualified domestic relations order entered in her dissolution proceeding. Proof of delivery for those documents was left blank. ¶ 10 Keane appeared before the court on August 10, 2018, and sought a continuance for the August 28 hearing. Sterk was not present. As presented in her motion, Keane argued she could not be in Illinois on August 28 because her daughter was scheduled to start"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10488422 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF BARBARA ANN. Docket: sheets and the QDRO itself. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10488422 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Schmidt concurred in the judgment. _____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: enefit service 6 [Joseph] received from the date of marriage, March 17, 1967, up to and including the date the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage was entered, April 6, 1987. If the plan pays a cost of living increase, improvement or any other post- retirement benefit increase to [Joseph], the amount of any benefit payment [Barbara] is receiving or is eligible to receive will be increased by a proportionate share of any cost of living increase or any other post-retirement benefit increase. [Barbara's] share of the accrued benefit shall not be adjusted for Social Security Leveling if elected by [Joseph].\" ¶ 16 On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: _______________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided for in the parties' marital settlement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"381b5731-417b-4223-bf9f-fa34ae20dc99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10488422-10488422","title":"CourtListener opinion 10488422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheets and the QDRO itself","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ncurred in the judgment. _____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10489061 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Budorick. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489061 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mployer's guidelines prohibiting her from transferring the stock to anyone outside of the specified corporate entities by awarding Daniel his share of the stock's value, rather than the stock itself. ¶ 53 Daniel's arguments that the court should have used a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to turn over the stock shares to him or divide the stock in accordance with a \"reserved jurisdiction\" approach, are likewise unavailing. With regard to Daniel's argument that the court should have used a QDRO to effectuate its order dividing the JDS stock, it is premised on the assumption that the trial court awarded Daniel shares of JDS stock an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ues in August and September 2018. The court entered a judgment for dissolution on November 28, 2018, and a modified judgment for dissolution on April 10, 2019. Daniel appeals from both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) classifying Heather's retirement accounts from her employment in California as nonmarital property, (2) classifying and valuing Heather's shares in certain restricted stock, (3) valuing Heather's and Daniel's retirement accounts at different points in time, (4) requiring Daniel to pay $50,000 in attorney fees, (5) calculating Heather's gross income for child support purposes, (6) apportioning"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ember 3, 1995, in California. Prior to their marriage, beginning in July 1991, Heather worked as a nurse for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center (USC). During her employment, Heather participated in the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association pension program (LACERA pension), and also contributed to a retirement plan for government employees (L.A. County 457 Plan). Her contributions to the LACERA pension occurred both pre- and post-marriage. The interest from her contributions continued to grow following the marriage. Heather took two leaves from her employment at the hospital before terminating her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c3c5046-f093-4541-9e91-3a447e132d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489061-10489061","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er, Inc. (Hollister), a manufacturer of medical products. During her employment with Hollister, she participated in two retirement plans. The first plan, HolliShare, consists solely of contributions made by Hollister, while the second plan is a traditional 401(k) plan that allows for employee contributions (Hollister 401(k) Plan). Heather testified that she is only permitted to access HolliShare funds when she ends her employment with Hollister or when she retires. In August 2002, Heather rolled over $6663.50 from her L.A. County 457 Plan to the Hollister 401(k) Plan. ¶7 Also as part of her employment with Hollis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10489405 Extracted case name: In re ESTATE OF LISA R. LOESSY. Docket: 1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489405 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: w her motion to vacate, at which point the judgment order became final. Stark testified that, at that point, what needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a \"simple\" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they \"would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way.\" Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn \"didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO,\" so Stark \"had to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a \"simple\" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they \"would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way.\" Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn \"didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO,\" so Stark \"had to educate him on a QDRO and what had to be done.\" Stark further testified that his firm \"had to bas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): RO that Stark's firm prepared was ready to be entered, Stark discovered that decedent's account had been liquidated by decedent's mother prior to division. Although John's probate attorney, Michael Wood, took action to collect John's half of the decedent's 401(k) from the decedent's mother, Stark testified that Sohn took no action to collect the estate's half of decedent's 401(k) from decedent's mother. ¶ 29 Stark also testified that Sohn's numerous requests for financial records, including for records predating the divorce judgment, were unreasonable, especially given that the only differences in the statements"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e01a51b-093f-433a-98f8-c224497cd423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489405-10489405","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on to vacate, at which point the judgment order became final. Stark testified that, at that point, what needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a \"simple\" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they \"would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way.\" Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn \"didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO,\" so Stark \"had to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8b626c8-7590-4fa4-b4ec-be830444b587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-0929","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10489418 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wig. Docket: Second District No. 2-19-0929. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489418 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8b626c8-7590-4fa4-b4ec-be830444b587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-0929","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8b626c8-7590-4fa4-b4ec-be830444b587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-0929","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ose efforts failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018))"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8b626c8-7590-4fa4-b4ec-be830444b587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-0929","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ew days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018)) (the 2019 version) was amended as to its formula for the initial se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8b626c8-7590-4fa4-b4ec-be830444b587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489418-10489418","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-0929","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018))"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab96373d-f426-4c1b-a0d7-b8f152101890","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489419","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0068 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10489419 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JENNIFER JOHNSON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-20-0068 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489419 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab96373d-f426-4c1b-a0d7-b8f152101890","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489419","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0068 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab96373d-f426-4c1b-a0d7-b8f152101890","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10489419-10489419","title":"CourtListener opinion 10489419","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0068 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s counsel, respondent testified that as affiliates, he and Kadel could transfer shares between themselves. Respondent stated he was not familiar with a provision in BICC's \"Equity Incentive Plan\" that allowed for the transfer of shares in connection with a domestic relations order (DRO). Respondent objected to admission of the Equity Incentive -8- 2020 IL App (2d) 200068-U Plan, citing relevance, because it did not pertain to BICC stock and concerned an employee stock incentive plan. ¶ 22 Respondent agreed that the email he sent petitioner on July 8, 2016, informing petitioner that he could not transfer the BICC stock to her i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b980034-bc0d-4141-9dcc-3dc0c7dd9a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490088","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490088 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490088 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b980034-bc0d-4141-9dcc-3dc0c7dd9a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490088","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b980034-bc0d-4141-9dcc-3dc0c7dd9a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490088","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: marriage, or plaintiff's cohabitation with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. Plaintiff was also awarded 50% of her former husband's retirement fund and she was \"entitled to any increase in benefits allowed on her marital share of the Retirement Plan.\" The retirement benefits would commence when her former husband retired or when he began to receive the benefits, whichever date was earlier. Thereafter, a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) was entered on January 25, 2013. ¶8 Plaintiff further alleged that on July 17, 2013, O'Hara advised and assured her that she had to wait until h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b980034-bc0d-4141-9dcc-3dc0c7dd9a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490088","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: agree to the settlement if she -4- 1-20-1003 would receive permanent maintenance. According to plaintiff's amended complaint, O'Hara assured her that the marital settlement agreement would furnish plaintiff with all the benefits of her former husband's pension and that the terms were the very best possible solution to her property settlements, she would fare no better at trial, and there was nothing to worry about. ¶ 15 After the matter was fully briefed and argued, the circuit court entered a written order dismissing the complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5). Specifically, the circuit court observed that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b980034-bc0d-4141-9dcc-3dc0c7dd9a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490088-10490088","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490088","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to any increase in benefits allowed on her marital share of the Retirement Plan.\" The retirement benefits would commence when her former husband retired or when he began to receive the benefits, whichever date was earlier. Thereafter, a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) was entered on January 25, 2013. ¶8 Plaintiff further alleged that on July 17, 2013, O'Hara advised and assured her that she had to wait until her former husband retired to enter the QILDRO calculation order to begin receiving funds. In September 2013, O'Hara informed plaintiff that she was no longer practicing law and would not be entering th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490324 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Salata. Docket: 2-20-0502 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490324 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ss as his sole and separate property.\" The MSA further provided that the \"401(k) and pension shall be distributed pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders.\" The MSA stated: \"The Wife and/or her counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of the QDRO and other required documents.\" The MSA also provided for equalization of attorney fees paid through marital funds and otherwise evenly distributed marital assets. ¶7 B. Bruning's Small Claims Complaint ¶8 On January 30, 2018, Bruning filed a complaint in small claims court, seeking $2410.64 in unpaid attorney fees. ¶9 C. Eversman's Answer and Countercl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: judgment of dissolution of the marriage, which incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA). ¶6 As is relevant here, the MSA provided for a $75,000 lump sum payment to Laura, instead of monthly maintenance, to be paid from one of Eversman's retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a \"FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016\" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a \"FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension\" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a \"Portable P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a \"FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016\" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a \"FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension\" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a \"Portable Pension through Federal Express with a lump sum value of $71,004.12 as of September 26, 2016\" (Portable Pension Plan). The MSA provided: (1) Laura was \"awarded $321,383.35 from the [FedEx Savings Plan]\" and \"[t]his sum represents an overall set-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a183a8e-4c6b-43ed-84b3-2136e72392b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490324-10490324","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-20-0502 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the MSA provided for a $75,000 lump sum payment to Laura, instead of monthly maintenance, to be paid from one of Eversman's retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a \"FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016\" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a \"FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension\" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a \"Portable Pension through Federal Express with a lump sum value of $71,004.12 as of September 26, 2016\" (Portable Pension Plan). T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490336 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Folley. Docket: Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490336 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: penses were to be paid from the spousal maintenance payments; at the time of the dissolution of marriage in 2012, the parties had three minor children in Anne's care, but there was currently only one minor child in her care; at the time of the dissolution, qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) were entered, which equally divided Greg's retirement and deferred compensation plans between the parties; at the time of the parties' MSA, Greg had base gross income of $38,380 per month plus significant additional short-term and long-term incentive pay; on July 1, 2017, defendant opted to retire as the result of being forced to choose between"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine children were still minors. Under the MSA, Anne was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bae757-ae63-45e1-8a95-708cbd6322b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490336-10490336","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490336","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine children"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490382 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of A'Hearn. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490382 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h the court classified as marital property, was to be sold. After the mortgage and the expenses of the sale were paid, the remaining proceeds of the sale were to be divided equally between the parties. Also, the order contemplated the drafting and entry of qualified domestic relations orders: -9- \"The following retirement, investment, mutual funds, and other accounts comprise both marital and non-marital property. Each party shall retain the non-marital portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Rela"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (‘QILDRO'). i. State Farm 401(k) Plan—QDRO ii. State Farm Retirement Plan/Pension—QDRO iii. [Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)] Retirement Account— QILDRO.\" Exhibit B of the order provided that the State Farm 401(k) plan, the State Farm pension, and the IMRF retirement account were to be divided by qualified domestic relations orders, giving each party a \"one-half marital portion.\" ¶ 26 On January 16, 2020, the ci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by requiring petitioner to make respondent a beneficiary of the survivor benefit of his pension plan. (2) By finding that petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not intend a gift by contributing $200,000 toward the purchase of a house conveyed to the parties in joint tenancy, the circuit court did not make a finding that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 The circuit court of McLean County dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15996a64-1f32-4779-b292-d9f0f170ff57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490382-10490382","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ty shall retain the non-marital portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (‘QILDRO'). i. State Farm 401(k) Plan—QDRO ii. State Farm Retirement Plan/Pension—QDRO iii. [Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)] Retirement Account— QILDRO.\" Exhibit B of the order provided that the State Farm 401(k) plan, the State Farm pension, and the IMRF retirement account were to be divided by qualified domestic relations orders, giving each party a \"one-half marital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98e46e54-ad8b-4ddc-a651-84de2030295a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-1146","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490636 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Andres. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District No. 2-19-1146. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490636 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98e46e54-ad8b-4ddc-a651-84de2030295a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-1146","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98e46e54-ad8b-4ddc-a651-84de2030295a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490636-10490636","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-19-1146","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he rights and obligations that already existed, it is properly characterized as a motion to enforce the prior Agreed Order, rather than a modification or a new cause of action. See id.; In re Marriage of Allen, 343 Ill. App. 3d 410, 412-13 (2003). \"Where a domestic relations order has been entered, the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order [citation], as further performance by the parties is often contemplated [citation].\" Smithberg, 192 Ill. 2d at 297-98. Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the issue. ¶ 62 We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court should have deducted Nick's mainte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490853 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wehr. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: Second District No. 2-20-0726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490853 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: appellee. Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Respondent, Paul A. Wehr, appeals the trial court's division of his municipal pension in a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) issued according to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a \"participant,\" as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: and presented to the Court for entry a [QILDRO] equally dividing the marital portion, in a form acceptable to the respective plan administrators, of the Husband's [IMRF] pension. The ‘QILDRO' for the Husband's [IMRF] pension shall define the amount of the Alternate Payee's benefit as follows: ‘This order assigns to the Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50% of the marital portion of the Participant's accrued benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's Benefit Commencement Date, or the Alternate Payee's Benefit Commencement Date, if earlier. The marital portion shall be determined by multip"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Respondent, Paul A. Wehr, appeals the trial court's division of his municipal pension in a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) issued according to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a \"participant,\" as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital portion of Paul's accrued benefit under the plan,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c50cf4a0-88f1-4cbd-b22e-4d52433e8652","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490853-10490853","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490853","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District No. 2-20-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ettlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a \"participant,\" as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital portion of Paul's accrued benefit under the plan, the trial court determined that Paul was a \"participant\" in the plan even during months where he was not a municipal employee and not contributing to the plan. This was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to enter a correct QILDRO. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Paul and Janet were married on October"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"707db972-0a70-4fd9-8498-ad0504ced171","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10490947 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Baggett. Docket: of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490947 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"707db972-0a70-4fd9-8498-ad0504ced171","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"707db972-0a70-4fd9-8498-ad0504ced171","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ile an emergency motion to compel. On April 27, 2015, Christy was ordered to pay Claudio $3460 based on the March 20, 2015, contempt finding. ¶ 14 As the 508(b) petition further alleged, Christy was ordered to pay a fee due for preparation of the parties qualified domestic relations order, which she did not pay, and was held in contempt for her failure. Claudio was also forced to seek the court's intervention to comply with discovery requests and required to send subpoenas due to Christy's failure to comply with his requests and the court's directives. Although Christy complains that the awarded attorney fees include billings subsequ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"707db972-0a70-4fd9-8498-ad0504ced171","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10490947-10490947","title":"CourtListener opinion 10490947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rgency motion to compel. On April 27, 2015, Christy was ordered to pay Claudio $3460 based on the March 20, 2015, contempt finding. ¶ 14 As the 508(b) petition further alleged, Christy was ordered to pay a fee due for preparation of the parties qualified domestic relations order, which she did not pay, and was held in contempt for her failure. Claudio was also forced to seek the court's intervention to comply with discovery requests and required to send subpoenas due to Christy's failure to comply with his requests and the court's directives. Although Christy complains that the awarded attorney fees include billings subsequ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10491532 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10491532 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: final ruling for up to one year if the grounds specified in the motion are fraud or mistake, the court should have reconsidered its final divorce order, required Wife to produce an affidavit to show proof of the attorney fees, corrected the computation of the QDRO, and clarified the spousal support award. We agree that, generally, a motion for reconsideration based upon fraud or mistake can be filed up to one year after a final order is entered. However, we have previously stated: A motion for reconsideration is simply not an opportunity to relitigate facts upon which a court has already ruled. In Ray v. Ray, 216"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ] and finds them to be reasonable.\" Husband's assertion that Wife's attorney fraudulently or mistakenly misrepresented the marital portion of his retirement fund was litigated during the divorce proceeding and the computed amount of the marital portion of the retirement account was incorporated into the final divorce order. While Husband argues to assert mistake on his own attorney's behalf and fraud involving Wife and Wife's attorney, his allegations to support those claims involved issues litigated during the parties' final divorce hearing. It is apparent from the motion for reconsideration and the record on appeal that Husban"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2022, the family court held final hearings on the divorce petition. In its final order entered on December 16, 2022, the court awarded spousal support to Wife in the amount of $1,000.00 per month for five years, and half of the appreciated value of Husband's 401(k) that was accumulated during the marriage, based on the court's findings regarding the parties' respective incomes and expenses. The court also granted Wife's request for attorney fees in the amount of $8,000.00, finding that \"[Husband] is 100% at fault in causing the divorce to be filed\" and Wife \"did not want a divorce.\" Husband did not appeal the final or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"757ff8c3-58b8-40d0-b7ed-4a7f1e44a8b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10491532-10491532","title":"CourtListener opinion 10491532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s December 16, 2022, final divorce order, styled as \"Motion to Dismiss Order Entered in a Divorce Proceeding on the Basis it Was Obtained by Fraudulent Representations.\" Husband asked the family court to modify the award of attorney fees, spousal support, and equitable distribution of retirement funds in its final divorce order. Husband asserted that Wife fraudulently and falsely represented that she was not at fault in causing the divorce and fraudulently and falsely represented that she needed spousal support. He also stated that he mistakenly believed Wife's attorney would produce the invoice for the attorney fees, but nothing had"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cabc638b-a313-4572-978c-2a85c18f7daf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258","title":"CourtListener opinion 10492258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10492258 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10492258 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cabc638b-a313-4572-978c-2a85c18f7daf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258","title":"CourtListener opinion 10492258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cabc638b-a313-4572-978c-2a85c18f7daf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258","title":"CourtListener opinion 10492258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ife, Michelle. His notice of appeal lists these orders, claiming they are being \"appealed\" as \"final judgments.\" Michelle moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely, and she in part is correct. Of the orders identified in Robert's notice, only two are timely: a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and an order denying the former husband's motion for relief from a previously rendered recommended dissolution judgment. The initial brief, however, fails to demonstrate any \"preliminary basis for\" reversing or vacating either one. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (authorizing summary affirmance in such circumstances). We affirm as to those two orders"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cabc638b-a313-4572-978c-2a85c18f7daf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10492258-10492258","title":"CourtListener opinion 10492258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lle. His notice of appeal lists these orders, claiming they are being \"appealed\" as \"final judgments.\" Michelle moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely, and she in part is correct. Of the orders identified in Robert's notice, only two are timely: a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and an order denying the former husband's motion for relief from a previously rendered recommended dissolution judgment. The initial brief, however, fails to demonstrate any \"preliminary basis for\" reversing or vacating either one. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (authorizing summary affirmance in such circumstances). We affirm as to those two orders"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10494304 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. STEPHEN E. WHITTED. Extracted reporter citation: 815 F. App'x 202. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10494304 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Judge Lane's custody decision, to no avail. Judge Lane also held Ms. Jordan in contempt for failing to transfer the $55,000 from her 401(k) plan. Judge Lane stated, however, that the burden was on Mr. Whitted to provide Ms. Jordan with a valid and executed qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\")3 and directed him to do so. Mr. Whitted subsequently executed a defective QDRO but failed to take further action to transfer the money from the 401(k) plan. 2 The complaint was eventually dismissed. Mr. Whitted appealed the decision, without success. 3 \"A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is the vehicle by which pension benefits are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: es joint legal custody of their children, physical custody to Ms. Jordan, and reasonable visitation 2 to Mr. Whitted. The court ordered Mr. Whitted to pay child support in the amount of $1,735.93 per month and awarded him $55,000 from Ms. Jordan's 401(k) retirement plan. Mr. Whitted was directed to provide Ms. Jordan with an account into which the retirement funds would be transferred. At that time, Mr. Whitted was employed as an Assistant County Attorney for DeKalb County, Georgia. Mr. Whitted chronically failed to pay child support, and in 2010, Ms. Jordan asked the Superior Court of Fulton County to hold him in co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ctive QDRO but failed to take further action to transfer the money from the 401(k) plan. 2 The complaint was eventually dismissed. Mr. Whitted appealed the decision, without success. 3 \"A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is the vehicle by which pension benefits are transferred from one party to another, ‘either pursuant to the Marital Disposition Act, or through an attachment in aid of a support obligation.'\" Fischbach v. Fischbach, 187 Md. App. 61, 94 (2009) (quoting Janusz v. Gilliam, 404 Md. 524, 538 (2008)). 4 On May 5, 2011, Mr. Whitted moved for the recusal of Judge Lane. He also petitioned for m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2b7ec6-901f-4fb1-9218-eddfa2363ac0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10494304-10494304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10494304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"815 F. App'x 202","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e parties joint legal custody of their children, physical custody to Ms. Jordan, and reasonable visitation 2 to Mr. Whitted. The court ordered Mr. Whitted to pay child support in the amount of $1,735.93 per month and awarded him $55,000 from Ms. Jordan's 401(k) retirement plan. Mr. Whitted was directed to provide Ms. Jordan with an account into which the retirement funds would be transferred. At that time, Mr. Whitted was employed as an Assistant County Attorney for DeKalb County, Georgia. Mr. Whitted chronically failed to pay child support, and in 2010, Ms. Jordan asked the Superior Court of Fulton County t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38a31851-11c7-4f16-82b5-cde58d2510c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797","title":"CourtListener opinion 1049797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 S.W.3d 625","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1049797 Extracted case name: JESSE ROBERT ANDERSON v. CHRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 8 S.W.3d 625. Docket: M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1049797 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38a31851-11c7-4f16-82b5-cde58d2510c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797","title":"CourtListener opinion 1049797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 S.W.3d 625","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38a31851-11c7-4f16-82b5-cde58d2510c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797","title":"CourtListener opinion 1049797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 S.W.3d 625","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: we have determined the relief sought in the motion did not qualify for Rule 60.02 relief. Wife merely sought to substantially amend the division of marital property because Husband had been recalcitrant by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to facilitate the division of the marital property. The May 6 motion did not qualify for Rule 60.02 relief, and we find no other legal basis upon which the trial court was authorized to amend a judgment that had become final 1 Wife also filed other pleadings and motions in the interim. On August 6, 2008, Wife filed a suit for the Sale and Partition of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38a31851-11c7-4f16-82b5-cde58d2510c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1049797-1049797","title":"CourtListener opinion 1049797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 S.W.3d 625","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: motions in the interim. On August 6, 2008, Wife filed a suit for the Sale and Partition of Real Property and sought additional relief from the court. On January 30, 2009, the trial court entered an order stating that Husband had sixty days to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate the division of martial assets. No such Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed. 2 Wife also raises issues on appeal. Our ruling renders the other issues moot, a fact counsel for both parties agreed to during oral argument. -2- more than a year earlier; therefore, we have determined the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10499144 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thurston. Extracted reporter citation: 445 P.3d 971. Docket: 57344-0-II The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10499144 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the Matter of the Marriage of: No. 57344-0-II LAURIE MARIE HELM, Respondent, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION CLAYTON AUSTIN HELM, Appellant. CHE, J. ⎯ Clayton Helm appeals the trial court's entry of a new Qualified Domestic Relations Order Military (2022 QDRO). Clayton1 is a retired member of the U.S. military. Clayton and Laurie Helm married on September 30, 2001. The marriage was dissolved on September 30, 2014. The decree of dissolution awarded Laurie half of the marital portion of Clayton's military pension. In 2015, the trial court entered an agreed Military Retired Pay Division Order (2015 order) di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 's military pension, the trial court found The marital portion of the uniformed services retired pay of [Clayton] (hereafter military pension or retired pay) is subject to marital property division. [Laurie] is entitled to a share of [Clayton's] military retirement benefits, as set out in the Decree. [Laurie's] entitlement to retired pay accrues upon the retirement of [Clayton]. The remaining portion of [Clayton's] military retired pay is the sole and separate property of [Clayton]. [F]or the purposes of calculating the marital portion, the parties were married on September 30, 2001 and separated on September 30, 2014."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 2 QDRO). Clayton1 is a retired member of the U.S. military. Clayton and Laurie Helm married on September 30, 2001. The marriage was dissolved on September 30, 2014. The decree of dissolution awarded Laurie half of the marital portion of Clayton's military pension. In 2015, the trial court entered an agreed Military Retired Pay Division Order (2015 order) directing distribution of Clayton's disposable military retired pay. Clayton then retired from the military in 2019. In 2021, Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) determined the 2015 order did not support payments of Clayton's disposable military reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6a7ce5-56de-48dc-b915-cfae65c1afed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10499144-10499144","title":"CourtListener opinion 10499144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57344-0-II The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"445 P.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is insufficient to support a COMMUNITY PROPERTY award . . . We have terminated the community property award and an audit will be performed.\"5 CP at 129. On July 8, 2022, Laurie filed a CR 60 motion to correct a scrivener's error and enter a new qualified domestic relations order. Laurie sent a setting order for the motion hearing to Clayton. In her motion, she appeared to argue that the 2015 order did not meet DFAS's current requirements for military retirement orders and needed to be updated in order for DFAS to resume its payments to her. On August 5, Clayton filed his response to Laurie's motion. The record contains a CR 2A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4773fa95-e222-445f-9c5a-aa6c63157488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10501406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10501406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1686 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10501406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4773fa95-e222-445f-9c5a-aa6c63157488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10501406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4773fa95-e222-445f-9c5a-aa6c63157488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10501406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vehicle maintenance? 10. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the direct benefits he received from the personal use of his pension? 11. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the lack of the earning capacity of Mother? Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the net proceeds she received from settlement of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4773fa95-e222-445f-9c5a-aa6c63157488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10501406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ___________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S20017-24 The record provides the following background. Prior to the instant litigation, Father had been paying Mother $867 per month in child support pursuant to a domestic relations order entered in August 2020. In March 2023, Mother sought an upward modification. She believed that Father experienced a substantial change in circumstances – namely, an increase of his income from two sources: 1) additional income from gas leases; and 2) additional income from his self-owned business. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4352(a). Moreover, Mother sought a m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4773fa95-e222-445f-9c5a-aa6c63157488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10501406-10501406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10501406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ttorneys' fees and costs. After buying a home and making other real estate investments, approximately $250,000 remained from the settlement. Mother said she cannot receive social security disability because she received too much income in child support and survivor benefits.2 Mother receives survivor benefits, amounting to $2,800 per month, because the father of Mother's other children is deceased. Father exercises partial physical custody – approximately 5 overnights out of 14 during the school year, and 50/50 during the summer months. Upon consideration of the testimony and evidence, the trial court departed from the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48079480-f0bd-4248-a979-807f20ba1bda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856","title":"CourtListener opinion 10505856","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10505856 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10505856 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48079480-f0bd-4248-a979-807f20ba1bda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856","title":"CourtListener opinion 10505856","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48079480-f0bd-4248-a979-807f20ba1bda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856","title":"CourtListener opinion 10505856","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ilings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Regarding the appellant's argument that the March 2016 order striking the survivor annuity provision of the 2001 Domestic Relations Order (DRO) merely corrected an inadvertent error or mistake in the original DRO, that argument is without merit. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-7. Because the appellant retired from the Federal service prior to correcting the DRO, OPM is barred by statute from processing the amended DRO, and the statute contains no provision for amendment due to an inadvertent error or mi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48079480-f0bd-4248-a979-807f20ba1bda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10505856-10505856","title":"CourtListener opinion 10505856","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: nd A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member FINAL ORDER The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) granting his former spouse a court-ordered survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On petition for review, the appellant restates 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b5794f0-28e9-4401-986b-96924e0f0c04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545","title":"CourtListener opinion 10506545","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10506545 Extracted case name: N.A. v. N. Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 880. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10506545 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b5794f0-28e9-4401-986b-96924e0f0c04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545","title":"CourtListener opinion 10506545","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b5794f0-28e9-4401-986b-96924e0f0c04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545","title":"CourtListener opinion 10506545","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ffirm in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. A December 2019 agreed divorce decree in case number DF-19-09267 provided, among other things, that: (1) Mr. Payne would receive portions of three of Ms. Eley's retirement accounts, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) that the court would enter either upon or after entering the decree; (2) Mr. Payne would be required to \"pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission\"; and (3) to \"effect an equitable division of the estate of the parties and as a part of the division, each party shall be responsible for his or her own attorney's fees, expenses, and co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b5794f0-28e9-4401-986b-96924e0f0c04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10506545-10506545","title":"CourtListener opinion 10506545","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. A December 2019 agreed divorce decree in case number DF-19-09267 provided, among other things, that: (1) Mr. Payne would receive portions of three of Ms. Eley's retirement accounts, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) that the court would enter either upon or after entering the decree; (2) Mr. Payne would be required to \"pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission\"; and (3) to \"effect an equitable division of the estate of the parties and as a part of the division, each party shall be responsible for his or her own attorney's fees, expenses, and co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04063624-4381-4adf-907b-46c6f42d3dc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1051974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1051974 Docket: 93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1051974 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04063624-4381-4adf-907b-46c6f42d3dc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1051974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04063624-4381-4adf-907b-46c6f42d3dc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1051974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: No. 93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV Filed February 29, 2008 Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., dissenting. The parties in this case have struggled mightily for many years to fashion a court order that the plan administrator would find legally acceptable as a qualified domestic relations order under the applicable federal statutory scheme. Apparently, their efforts to date have been unsuccessful. The trial court and the majority opinion place a great deal of emphasis and significance on the proposed qualified domestic relations order of November 21, 1995. I do not. It seems to me that all of the proposed qualified domestic relations orders are to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04063624-4381-4adf-907b-46c6f42d3dc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1051974-1051974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1051974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV Filed February 29, 2008 Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., dissenting. The parties in this case have struggled mightily for many years to fashion a court order that the plan administrator would find legally acceptable as a qualified domestic relations order under the applicable federal statutory scheme. Apparently, their efforts to date have been unsuccessful. The trial court and the majority opinion place a great deal of emphasis and significance on the proposed qualified domestic relations order of November 21, 1995. I do not. It seems to me that all of the proposed qualified domestic relations orders are to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49b151ca-5894-4531-b8b2-05ca002d8328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1052106 Extracted case name: ANTHONY JOSEPH ZIOBROWSKI v. MARCY HAYS ZIOBROWSKI. Extracted reporter citation: 902 S.W.2d 918. Docket: M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49b151ca-5894-4531-b8b2-05ca002d8328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49b151ca-5894-4531-b8b2-05ca002d8328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: divorce does not mean that we ignore the change in the value of money over time. To award Ms. Ziobrowski only $338.30 in 2007 dollars is to ignore the trial court's statement of its overall intent: \"The court intends an equal division of these assets.\" The QDRO signed by the trial court to implement its 1995 decree gives Ms. Ziobrowski half of Mr. Ziobrowski's \"accrued vested benefit as of September 27, 1995, or the next closest valuation date . . . .\" This appears to be an appropriate implementation of the final decree, and so I would affirm. In the alternative, I would award Ms. Ziobrowski half of the present da"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49b151ca-5894-4531-b8b2-05ca002d8328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 59-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 DISSENT ________________________ HOLLY M. KIRBY, J., DISSENTING: I must respectfully dissent from the majority's interpretation of the 1995 final decree of divorce to award only $338.30 per month out of the monthly retirement benefit to Ms. Ziobrowski. In its discussion of the language used in the final decree, the majority notes that the trial court observed that the value of certain assets, including the GM retirement plan, were \"not discernible,\" and that it went on to amend Ms. Ziobrowski's \"one-half of the $676.60 monthly benefit payable on account of the old General Motors retire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49b151ca-5894-4531-b8b2-05ca002d8328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052106-1052106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"902 S.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: wo techniques for valuing and distributing pensions. The first technique is the present value method; the second is the retained jurisdiction or deferred distribution method. The present value method requires the court to place a present cash value on the pension interest acquired during the marriage . . . . Once the court computes the present cash value of the pension rights, it awards the pension to the employee spouse and then awards the other spouse marital property of equal value. If the marital estate is insufficient to make an offsetting award, then the court may make an award payable in installments. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1052107 Extracted case name: ANTHONY JOSEPH ZIOBROWSKI v. MARCY HAYS ZIOBROWSKI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052107 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 95160 Russ Heldman, Judge No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which and DAVID R. FARMER , J., joined, AND HOLLY M. KIRBY ,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o this appeal, valued and divided the parties' marital property as follows: 5. MARITAL ESTATE. The court finds the marital property of the parties to be as follows: ... Saturn Retirement $7,652.98 Saturn Individual Savings Plan (net value) $3,625.19 GM Pension Benefit Not discernable Household furnishings Not discernable Ziobrowski vs. Westra (cause of action) Not discernable ... 7. PROPERTY DIVISION. The home of the parties shall be sold. From the proceeds of the sale . . . all indebtedness of the parties . . . shall be paid. . . . Thereafter, the next $11,493.77 shall be paid to wife. This amount represe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1c7203e-f548-4410-9e26-25ba385a6d1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052107-1052107","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: AYS ZIOBROWSKI Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 95160 Russ Heldman, Judge No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1052155 Extracted case name: WILLIAM EDWARD HARGROVE v. MERRIELLEN HARGROVE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052155 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as part of her marital property award. Id. at *2. The divorce did not include an MDA; rather, the trial court provided in the judgment that the parties were to divide equally the stock in the husband's retirement package. Id. Thereafter, the court issued the QDRO described as the \"Stock Bonus Plan, Stock Savings and Retirement Income Plan, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan.\" Id. at *3. The wife then filed a petition for declaratory relief requesting the court declare her rights under the final divorce decree, and also claimed that she was entitled to the retirement package, including the pension. The trial court hea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd not have to place any additional pressure . . . . We will leave visitation in his discretion. Also, the judge's order declared that Husband had fully satisfied the $15,000.00 constituting Wife's one-half interest in the marital home. As to the disputed retirement accounts, the judge found that Wife was entitled to \"[t]he Boilermakers National Pention [sic] Trust and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered within 60 days\"; however, Wife \"is not entitled to the Boilermakers National Annuity Trust.\" II. ISSUES PRESENTED Appellant has timely filed her notice of appeal and presents the following three issu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: provided that Husband would be the primary residential parent and Wife would be responsible for the child every other weekend and during certain holidays. As to property division, the Marital Dissolution Agreement required Husband to transfer one-half of his pension plan to Wife. Concerning the marital home, Wife agreed to execute a quitclaim deed to Husband conveying her interest to Husband simultaneously with Husband paying her $15,000. After a contempt hearing, the court modified the parenting schedule; found that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's pension, but not one-half of Husband's annuity; and found th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb07a96-384f-42b4-acfd-1cd83a251fba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052155-1052155","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052155","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that Husband had fully satisfied the $15,000.00 constituting Wife's one-half interest in the marital home. As to the disputed retirement accounts, the judge found that Wife was entitled to \"[t]he Boilermakers National Pention [sic] Trust and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered within 60 days\"; however, Wife \"is not entitled to the Boilermakers National Annuity Trust.\" II. ISSUES PRESENTED Appellant has timely filed her notice of appeal and presents the following three issues for review: 1. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the modification of the residential sharing schedule contained in the permane"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1052604 Extracted case name: MARY KAY THOMPSON v. CLAYTON THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 879 S.W.2d 856. Docket: M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: xty-two (62) and Seven Hundred Seventy Three ($773.00) Dollars per month thereafter. ... (iii) Commencement Date and Form of Payment to Wife: Wife may elect to commence her share of the benefits as soon as administratively feasible following the date the QDRO is approved by the Plan Administrator, or at the earliest date permitted under the terms of the Plan, if later. Benefits will be payable to Wife in any form or permissible option otherwise permitted under the terms and provisions of the GM Plan, other than a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity with her current spouse as the beneficiary. ... (ix) A QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ent: B. DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN: Husband is a participant under the General Motors Corporation defined benefit pension plan (General Motors Pension Plan \"GM Plan\"). For the purposes of marital property division, Wife is hereby granted a portion of Husband's retirement benefits under the GM Plan as designated below.... (I) Amount of Wife's Benefits: Effective as of such Assignment Date, Wife shall be assigned a portion of Husband's retirement benefits in an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Husband's Accrued Benefit under the GM Plan as of the Husband's benefit commencement date, or the Wife's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ppellant to pay $1,210 per month in child support. Of particular interest in this case are the following provisions of the Marital Dissolution Agreement: B. DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN: Husband is a participant under the General Motors Corporation defined benefit pension plan (General Motors Pension Plan \"GM Plan\"). For the purposes of marital property division, Wife is hereby granted a portion of Husband's retirement benefits under the GM Plan as designated below.... (I) Amount of Wife's Benefits: Effective as of such Assignment Date, Wife shall be assigned a portion of Husband's retirement benefits in an amount equal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bcedeb6-96d8-4217-9e21-a0648cc6577b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052604-1052604","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"879 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: be payable to Wife in any form or permissible option otherwise permitted under the terms and provisions of the GM Plan, other than a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity with her current spouse as the beneficiary. ... (ix) A QDRO Shall Issue: A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and submitted to these plans and accounts according to the terms of this agreement... ... 11. ALIMONY. Husband shall pay Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars per month beginning November 1, 2003 and continuing until Wife's remarriage, death, or Husband's death, whichever is earlier. Alimony"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6ca17c2-8d98-4cdd-aad5-ca261f565b57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052985","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-01697-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1052985 Extracted case name: NANCY LEE BARLOW LONG v. BOBBY RAY LONG. Extracted reporter citation: 907 S.W.2d 815. Docket: M2004-01697-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052985 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6ca17c2-8d98-4cdd-aad5-ca261f565b57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052985","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-01697-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6ca17c2-8d98-4cdd-aad5-ca261f565b57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1052985-1052985","title":"CourtListener opinion 1052985","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-01697-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Court.\" The Court thus entered a judgment against husband for $27,133.61, found the husband to be in willful contempt, and ordered him to be imprisoned until he purged the contempt. The Court further ordered that if the husband failed to pay the judgment, a QDRO would be entered awarding the wife that amount from the husband's retirement. The wife's attorney was awarded a judgment for fees in the amount of $6,300.00. The husband has appealed and these issues are raised: 1. Whether the trial court erred in finding husband in civil contempt for failure to pay child support? 2. Whether the trial court erred in fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b180480-0ae2-42a0-b75b-e93ee8efb327","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1053068 Extracted reporter citation: 854 S.W.2d 87. Docket: W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1053068 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b180480-0ae2-42a0-b75b-e93ee8efb327","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b180480-0ae2-42a0-b75b-e93ee8efb327","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e and deliver a letter to the parties' financial advisor instructing the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b180480-0ae2-42a0-b75b-e93ee8efb327","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO, and her alleged refusal to permit Husband to ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b180480-0ae2-42a0-b75b-e93ee8efb327","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053068-1053068","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ver a letter to the parties' financial advisor instructing the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1053833 Extracted case name: TINA M. LUNSFORD v. ROBERT W. LUNSFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 900 S.W.2d 23. Docket: M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1053833 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed beneficiary of the death benefit at the time of Mr. Lunsford died, the trial court determined the intent of the parties evidenced by their marital dissolution agreement was to divest Tina Lunsford of any interest in his retirement plan. The trial court, by qualified domestic relations order, directed the death benefit be paid to the contingent beneficiaries and Tina M. Lunsford appealed. Because of the specific language of the marital dissolution agreement, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded DONALD P. HARRIS, SR. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ugh Tina M. Lunsford was the designated beneficiary of the death benefit at the time of Mr. Lunsford died, the trial court determined the intent of the parties evidenced by their marital dissolution agreement was to divest Tina Lunsford of any interest in his retirement plan. The trial court, by qualified domestic relations order, directed the death benefit be paid to the contingent beneficiaries and Tina M. Lunsford appealed. Because of the specific language of the marital dissolution agreement, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded DONALD P. HARRIS, SR. J., d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orce was granted between these parties on April 16, 2002. Mr. Lunsford died on July 29, 2003. At the time of his death, he was an employee of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). As a YMCA employee, he was a participant in the YMCA Retirement Fund, a pension plan formulated in compliance with the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In an application to participate in the YMCA Retirement Fund, dated October 12, 1998, Mr. Lunsford designated Tina Lunsford as the primary beneficiary of the pre-retirement death benefit provided by the fund, and she remained the designated primary b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3ce9894-b2c0-428f-bb90-de1ded20594b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1053833-1053833","title":"CourtListener opinion 1053833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: his death, he was an employee of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). As a YMCA employee, he was a participant in the YMCA Retirement Fund, a pension plan formulated in compliance with the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In an application to participate in the YMCA Retirement Fund, dated October 12, 1998, Mr. Lunsford designated Tina Lunsford as the primary beneficiary of the pre-retirement death benefit provided by the fund, and she remained the designated primary beneficiary at his death. Named as contingent beneficiaries on the application were his three minor childre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10547867 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McCausland. Extracted reporter citation: 335 P.3d 984. Docket: 57522-1-II property. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10547867 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: distribution order, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"036e5d79-1009-4ccf-b7a3-a727693120db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10547867-10547867","title":"CourtListener opinion 10547867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1054856 Extracted case name: GLORIA J. BEVILL v. ELLIS M. BEVILL. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Docket: E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1054856 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ermitted visits. Husband remitted approximately $900 to cover the additional cost. In February, 2001, Husband retired from Erlanger Medical Center. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Wife sought an injunction from the trial court to direct Husband to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that would entitle Wife to one-half of the Erlanger Medical Center retirement fund per the divorce judgment. The trial court entered an appropriate order and Wife subsequently received approximately $140,000, or one-half of the retirement fund, in June, 2002. After his retirement, Husband went to work for Walgreens Pharmacy on a full-time basis. In April or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: had been disabled for at least 15 years due to severe osteoarthritis. She alleged that it was anticipated her condition would continue to prevent her from obtaining gainful employment. The complaint further states that the parties had, among other assets, a retirement plan in Husband's name that was associated with his employment at Erlanger Medical Center, and various investments, including IDS/American Express security accounts. Husband responded by denying all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in Wife's complaint, save for Wife's allegation of irreconcilable differences. He asked that the parties be declared divorced. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: onsidered, the two most important 1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(E) sets forth the following as factors for the court's consideration: (i) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (ii) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (iii) The duration of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2aeb59d-1745-4de8-98ab-39f54f790bab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1054856-1054856","title":"CourtListener opinion 1054856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: isits. Husband remitted approximately $900 to cover the additional cost. In February, 2001, Husband retired from Erlanger Medical Center. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Wife sought an injunction from the trial court to direct Husband to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that would entitle Wife to one-half of the Erlanger Medical Center retirement fund per the divorce judgment. The trial court entered an appropriate order and Wife subsequently received approximately $140,000, or one-half of the retirement fund, in June, 2002. After his retirement, Husband went to work for Walgreens Pharmacy on a full-time basis. In April or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7e5312b-7807-4154-9273-e87da805706d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724","title":"CourtListener opinion 10555724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10555724 Docket: 589. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10555724 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7e5312b-7807-4154-9273-e87da805706d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724","title":"CourtListener opinion 10555724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7e5312b-7807-4154-9273-e87da805706d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724","title":"CourtListener opinion 10555724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: had not included an equal- izing judgment for wife. But the general judgment included an equalizing judgment of $261,905.89.1 After the filing of the notice of appeal, the court entered a limited judgment that included a qualified domes- tic relations order (QDRO), ORS 238.465, directing the divi- sion of husband's PERS account pursuant to the terms of the general judgment. Husband's first assignment of error focuses on the court's award to wife of $261,905.89, as an equalizing judgment: \"The trial court erred by dividing the parties' property in a manner that was not ‘just and proper in all the circum- stances'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7e5312b-7807-4154-9273-e87da805706d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724","title":"CourtListener opinion 10555724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: upport and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering the supplemental judgment implementing an order allocating husband's PERS account. However, we conclude that, because of a lack of explanation by the trial court, it is not possible to for us to review the trial court's equalizing award to wife. We therefore reverse and remand the general judgment fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7e5312b-7807-4154-9273-e87da805706d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10555724-10555724","title":"CourtListener opinion 10555724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: id- eration of equalizing award and otherwise affirmed; supple- mental judgment affirmed. Cite as 334 Or App 500 (2024) 501 EGAN, J. Husband appeals from general and supplemental judgments dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage, assign- ing error to the property division, specifically to the trial court's award to wife of property in lieu of spousal support and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1055810 Extracted case name: STEVEN D. ELLIOTT v. GINGER W. ELLIOTT. Extracted reporter citation: 950 S.W.2d 956. Docket: M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1055810 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ax consequences for the exercise of their own options.1 The parties later discovered that Home Depot's employee stock option plan would not permit Mr. Elliott to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 (\"REA\"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: es arising from the exercise of her half of the options. The trial court signed and entered the QDRO on January 14, 2002, but both Home Depot and its broker of record, Smith Barney, refused to honor it. Because Mr. Elliott's stock options were not part of a retirement plan, Home Depot and Smith Barney concluded that they could not be transferred under a QDRO. Moreover, under Home Depot's employee stock option plan, Mr. Elliott could not 1 The MDA specifically assigned Mr. Elliott responsibility for the taxes on the options he exercised after the parties' separation but prior to the entry of the MDA. -2- transfer his opt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 (\"REA\"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for the taxes arising from the exercise of her half of the options. The trial court signed and entered the QDRO on January 14, 2002, b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3395c541-4a0d-4f3e-b6d3-a04ef5284ae3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055810-1055810","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"950 S.W.2d 956","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ences for the exercise of their own options.1 The parties later discovered that Home Depot's employee stock option plan would not permit Mr. Elliott to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 (\"REA\"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1055968 Extracted case name: MORGAN SUSANNE FOXX v. STEVEN C. BOLDEN. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1055968 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . In its Final Order, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposal and awarded both parties one-half of $32,500, or $16,250 each. With regard to the Pension, the Trial Court, again accepting Husband's proposal, stated only that the Pension was not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), apparently assigning no value to the Pension. With regard to Wife's survivor benefit, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposed value and concluded this benefit had a present day value to Wife of $43,000. The Trial Court awarded Husband all of the equity in the marital residence totaling $132,000. Wife was awarded her entire thrift account value"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: re married, Husband already had contributed $6,878.17 to the Annuity and its total value was $10,223.82. By May of 1999, Husband had contributed a total of $22,020.96 and the value of the Annuity was $65,400.91. In addition to the Annuity portion of Husband's retirement plan, there is a separate monthly pension benefit (\"Pension\") which is funded solely by TVA and is based on Husband's years of service and earnings. The monthly benefit received by Husband from the Annuity is $454 and the monthly benefit received from the Pension is $1,179, resulting in a total combined monthly retirement benefit of $1,633.00.1 1 Husband elec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded Husband $25,000 in attorney fees. Wife appeals claiming, among other things, that the Trial Court erred when it failed to classify any of Husband's TVA funded retirement pension as marital property and equitably distribute it. Wife also claims the award of attorney fees to Husband was an abuse of discretion. We agree with Wife regarding the pension and, therefore, vacate the judgment as to the marital property division and remand this case to the Trial Court to determine how much of Husband's TVA funded retirement pension is marita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"403dd70e-16c5-4f9d-8d34-4221547e06c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1055968-1055968","title":"CourtListener opinion 1055968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: inal Order, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposal and awarded both parties one-half of $32,500, or $16,250 each. With regard to the Pension, the Trial Court, again accepting Husband's proposal, stated only that the Pension was not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), apparently assigning no value to the Pension. With regard to Wife's survivor benefit, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposed value and concluded this benefit had a present day value to Wife of $43,000. The Trial Court awarded Husband all of the equity in the marital residence totaling $132,000. Wife was awarded her entire thrift account value"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10564468 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Smid. Extracted reporter citation: 983 N.W.2d 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564468 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 22 hearing. The record on appeal likewise does not contain a transcript of that hearing. There is also no order in the record issued after the July 2022 hearing 7. Wayne characterizes the circuit court's ruling as similar to a transfer between spouses to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). He thus requests that if this Court upholds the \"HSA claw back\" then \"the matter should be remanded to order the transfer of HSA funds to be performed via a QDRO.\" But the court did not order that Wayne access his HSA funds for the cash equalization payment or transfer HSA funds to Regina. -20- #30321 giving Wayne the authorization he claims"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l ownership. It further provides that jointly acquired or jointly held property, however or whenever acquired, will be treated as shared property. The Agreement states that upon dissolution of their marriage, neither party would make a claim to the other's retirement account and that Wayne would receive the $189,000 in equity he brought into the marriage and Regina would receive the $5,000 in cash she brought into the marriage. Thereafter, \"all remaining property will be valued and divided equally regardless of either parties [sic] salary or contribution to the marriage.\" [¶5.] The Agreement refers to and includes separate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nt unconscionable because, in his view, \"Regina had reasonable disclosure of what the assets were\" and \"adequate knowledge of [his] property.\" As support, Wayne directs us to certain emails entered into evidence at trial, which he claims establish that his 401k balance was disclosed to Regina during a meeting they had with a financial planner. [¶28.] While Regina mentioned the parties' retirement accounts in a June 7 email to Wayne, this email does not refer to Regina and Wayne meeting with a financial planner, nor does the email show that Regina knew the balance of Wayne's 401k. Rather, the email refers to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a3b2af9-0162-496c-b036-dc45132ac03c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564468-10564468","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"983 N.W.2d 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . The record on appeal likewise does not contain a transcript of that hearing. There is also no order in the record issued after the July 2022 hearing 7. Wayne characterizes the circuit court's ruling as similar to a transfer between spouses to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). He thus requests that if this Court upholds the \"HSA claw back\" then \"the matter should be remanded to order the transfer of HSA funds to be performed via a QDRO.\" But the court did not order that Wayne access his HSA funds for the cash equalization payment or transfer HSA funds to Regina. -20- #30321 giving Wayne the authorization he claims"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d47acda-893c-474b-95e2-a897cc652de0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10564958 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564958 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d47acda-893c-474b-95e2-a897cc652de0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d47acda-893c-474b-95e2-a897cc652de0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: IONS DIVISION Case No. DR98040692 The Lampe Law Office, LLC, and Stephen Otte, for appellant. Eric D. Bender, for appellee. HENDRICKSON, J. {¶ 1} Kevin Shaw, appellant, appeals the decision of the Butler County Domestic Relations Court setting aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that had been in place for over 20 years. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the lower court. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Charles Shaw, plaintiff-appellee, and Sharon Shaw were married on August Butler CA2023-08-091 25, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d47acda-893c-474b-95e2-a897cc652de0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 5, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced in 1999. {¶ 3} They reached an agreement regarding the division of their property, which the trial court adopted.1 Regarding Charles's federal civil service pension, the decree provided the following: [Sharon] shall receive one half of [Charles]'s pension with the U.S. Postal Service. A separate qualified domestic relations order shall issue to effectuate this division, and the court reserves jurisdiction to correct any defect in wording. To implement this provision, in October 2000, the parties executed and fil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d47acda-893c-474b-95e2-a897cc652de0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564958-10564958","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ION Case No. DR98040692 The Lampe Law Office, LLC, and Stephen Otte, for appellant. Eric D. Bender, for appellee. HENDRICKSON, J. {¶ 1} Kevin Shaw, appellant, appeals the decision of the Butler County Domestic Relations Court setting aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that had been in place for over 20 years. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the lower court. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Charles Shaw, plaintiff-appellee, and Sharon Shaw were married on August Butler CA2023-08-091 25, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae17ead9-a870-43b0-af3a-97acba80eb9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564994","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10564994 Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564994 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae17ead9-a870-43b0-af3a-97acba80eb9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564994","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae17ead9-a870-43b0-af3a-97acba80eb9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10564994-10564994","title":"CourtListener opinion 10564994","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ain lots 4X and then 2X contrasts with the Phase Nine Plat's forward-looking language that lot 2X is \"to be\" dedicated to the City. Cf. Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232, 237 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (holding that divorce decree's language that a QDRO was \"to be\" entered after decree did not evidence a present intent to render a QDRO in the decree). 18 disputes the meaning the trial court placed on the word maintain. The Declaration does not define the term; thus, we must look to its ordinarily accepted meaning. Black's Law Dictionary defines maintain in three applicable ways: \"1. To continue (som"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10565020 Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.3d 285. Docket: sheet was not included in the record. See Baker. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10565020 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as moot. The record reflects that there were four principal documents considered by the trial court in making its October 2021 nunc pro tunc determination: a February 15, 1996 letter to counsel; the April 17, 1996 divorce decree; and two August 16, 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Both parties refer to the February 15, 1996 letter as the trial court's rendition. 1 Because both parties had the same surname at times relevant to this appeal, we will refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion. 2 During the interim, Gregory attempted to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order, and we dismissed that appeal for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Coon (Thomas) 1 divorced in 1996. Twenty-five years later, in January 2021, Gregory filed a petition for enforcement of a portion of their divorce decree's property division, seeking 40% of Victoria's retirement benefits, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Victoria also filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to clarify. The trial court heard the motions at a consolidated hearing on October 21, 2021, and then granted Victoria's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and awarded attorneys' fees to her. On June 1, 2023,2 the trial court entered a final judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The record reflects that there were four principal documents considered by the trial court in making its October 2021 nunc pro tunc determination: a February 15, 1996 letter to counsel; the April 17, 1996 divorce decree; and two August 16, 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Both parties refer to the February 15, 1996 letter as the trial court's rendition. 1 Because both parties had the same surname at times relevant to this appeal, we will refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion. 2 During the interim, Gregory attempted to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order, and we dismissed that appeal for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7817c521-3f1c-4acf-8c0e-7b196f7119be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10565020-10565020","title":"CourtListener opinion 10565020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet was not included in the record. See Baker","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Coon (Thomas) 1 divorced in 1996. Twenty-five years later, in January 2021, Gregory filed a petition for enforcement of a portion of their divorce decree's property division, seeking 40% of Victoria's retirement benefits, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Victoria also filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to clarify. The trial court heard the motions at a consolidated hearing on October 21, 2021, and then granted Victoria's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and awarded attorneys' fees to her. On June 1,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7484eb6b-c155-4798-8090-870803206cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10570766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"921 S.W.2d 944","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10570766 Extracted reporter citation: 921 S.W.2d 944. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10570766 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7484eb6b-c155-4798-8090-870803206cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10570766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"921 S.W.2d 944","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7484eb6b-c155-4798-8090-870803206cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10570766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"921 S.W.2d 944","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he hearing, a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled \"Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony.\" On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion, she alternatively requested"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7484eb6b-c155-4798-8090-870803206cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10570766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"921 S.W.2d 944","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e detail. Following the hearing, a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled \"Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony.\" On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7484eb6b-c155-4798-8090-870803206cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10570766-10570766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10570766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"921 S.W.2d 944","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled \"Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony.\" On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion, she alternatively requested"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10571326 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10571326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rties [. . .] until the same can be equitably distributed between the parties.\" Their final amended divorce order, entered on May 13, 2008, directed the following: The marital estate shall be equalized by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QDRO as required by the May 13, 2008, final divorce order. Mr. Thomas then filed a motion to show cause and a hearing on his motion was held on May 9, 2012. At that hearing, Ms. Thomas testified that she had withdrawn all monies from her retirement account. Mr. Thomas argued that the June 13, 2003, temporary order restrained and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: heir final amended divorce order, entered on May 13, 2008, directed the following: The marital estate shall be equalized by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f563724-7926-46e4-a441-89c0efb8491a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10571326-10571326","title":"CourtListener opinion 10571326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fied Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QDRO as required by the May 13, 2008, final divorce order. Mr. Thomas then filed a motion to show cause and a hearing on his motion was held on May 9, 2012. At that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1057171 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Mathis. Docket: 113496. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1057171 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fore us because it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was \"both unfair and contrary to the judgment of dissolution,\" which sought an equal overal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): that case is factually distinguishable from the case before us because it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was \"bo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ecause it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was \"both unfair and contrary to the judgment of dissolution,\" which sought an equal overal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2172cba5-9065-480b-b20b-3fdbd96aa5c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057171-1057171","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"113496","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ave become entangled with the supervening rights of third parties, including subsequent spouses. Additionally, entering a judgment of dissolution prior to property disposition would complicate, rather than simplify, matters with respect to the rights of a surviving spouse in the event of an intervening death. Other complications that can ensue if a judgment of dissolution is not deferred until disposition of the other matters include the loss of ability to file joint income tax returns, the loss of medical insurance coverage, and the loss of marital-property treatment for property accumulated during the intervening perio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ed02eec-2ee3-42a1-8d32-17195f5df32a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023","title":"CourtListener opinion 10572023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10572023 Docket: 589. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10572023 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ed02eec-2ee3-42a1-8d32-17195f5df32a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023","title":"CourtListener opinion 10572023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ed02eec-2ee3-42a1-8d32-17195f5df32a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023","title":"CourtListener opinion 10572023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: had not included an equal- izing judgment for wife. But the general judgment included an equalizing judgment of $261,905.89.1 After the filing of the notice of appeal, the court entered a limited judgment that included a qualified domes- tic relations order (QDRO), ORS 238.465, directing the divi- sion of husband's PERS account pursuant to the terms of the general judgment. Husband's first assignment of error focuses on the court's award to wife of $261,905.89, as an equalizing judgment: \"The trial court erred by dividing the parties' property in a manner that was not ‘just and proper in all the circum- stances'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ed02eec-2ee3-42a1-8d32-17195f5df32a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023","title":"CourtListener opinion 10572023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: upport and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering the supplemental judgment implementing an order allocating husband's PERS account. However, we conclude that, because of a lack of explanation by the trial court, it is not possible to for us to review the trial court's equalizing award to wife. We therefore reverse and remand the general judgment fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ed02eec-2ee3-42a1-8d32-17195f5df32a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10572023-10572023","title":"CourtListener opinion 10572023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"589","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: id- eration of equalizing award and otherwise affirmed; supple- mental judgment affirmed. Cite as 334 Or App 500 (2024) 501 EGAN, J. Husband appeals from general and supplemental judgments dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage, assign- ing error to the property division, specifically to the trial court's award to wife of property in lieu of spousal support and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e151a36f-c193-45ae-85fc-eddfcbd230e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146","title":"CourtListener opinion 10573146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023CA00165 4 further violation of this","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10573146 Docket: 2023CA00165 4 further violation of this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10573146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e151a36f-c193-45ae-85fc-eddfcbd230e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146","title":"CourtListener opinion 10573146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023CA00165 4 further violation of this","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e151a36f-c193-45ae-85fc-eddfcbd230e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146","title":"CourtListener opinion 10573146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023CA00165 4 further violation of this","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: IN addition, the [appellant] is ordered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e151a36f-c193-45ae-85fc-eddfcbd230e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146","title":"CourtListener opinion 10573146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023CA00165 4 further violation of this","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: dered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in selling the home to avoid foreclosur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e151a36f-c193-45ae-85fc-eddfcbd230e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10573146-10573146","title":"CourtListener opinion 10573146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023CA00165 4 further violation of this","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ion, the [appellant] is ordered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in selling the home t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1057546 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of CHINYE UWECHUE-. Extracted reporter citation: 160 Cal.App.4th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1057546 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: per., for Appellant. Brian M. Moore for Respondent. ****** In this legal separation action, appellant Chinye Uwechue appeals pro se the trial court‟s alleged failure to hear three motions to compel further responses to discovery in 2008 before entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 on October 28, 2008, and the trial court‟s March 13, 2012 award of sanctions of attorney fees and costs in favor of respondent Michael Akpati in conjunction with a second QDRO entered on the same date. Because appellant‟s notice of appeal as to the motions to compel is untimely, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. As to the order imposing sanctio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ugust 19, 2003. Based on a marital settlement agreement, final judgment was entered on April 12, 2006. No appeal was taken from that judgment. It appears that, between 2006 and 2008, respondent attempted to join into the action several employment benefit and pension plans. Respondent filed a motion on February 7, 2008, which likely was for entry of a QDRO related to the pension and benefit plans. The hearing on the motion was continued at least twice, based on appellant‟s concerns about withdrawals from the pension plans, and was set for hearing on October 22, 2008. Respondent served discovery requests in August 2008 s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d a motion on December 14, 2011, apparently to amend the 2008 QDRO. The trial court heard the motion on February 1, 2012. The court entered a notice of ruling on February 2, 2012, and an order on March 13, 2012, which granted the \"motion to amend the Rockwell 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and for attorney fees and costs as sanctions\" and awarded sanctions against appellant in the form of attorney fees and costs of $2,500 (the 2012 QDRO and sanctions order). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on March 27, 2012. She identified two \"bases for [the] appeal\": (1) the trial court‟s failure to hear the three mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d8a822-6dc3-4eef-b889-a13c093e58d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1057546-1057546","title":"CourtListener opinion 1057546","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"160 Cal.App.4th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ring\" on October 29, 2008 (the 2008 QDRO). 1 A QDRO is defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title 29 of the United States Code section 1056(d)(3)(B), as \"a domestic relations order,\" \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee‟s right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant\" under a pension plan, provided certain requirements are met. 2 In the meantime, on September 4, 2008, appellant propounded discovery on respondent related to the pension plan issues. Respondent served responses on Sep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a28b9bd-d31d-4cc3-8117-ed44126636db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"442 N.W.2d 545","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10575823 Extracted case name: V.J.H. v. C.A.B. Extracted reporter citation: 442 N.W.2d 545. Docket: 2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10575823 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a28b9bd-d31d-4cc3-8117-ed44126636db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"442 N.W.2d 545","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a28b9bd-d31d-4cc3-8117-ed44126636db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"442 N.W.2d 545","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nty-one separate issues for our consideration. However, the argument section of Roberts' brief addresses only the four issues identified above. We therefore confine our discussion to those four issues. 2 No. 2017AP2474 ¶3 In December 2014, Roberts signed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) regarding two of his pensions, and those orders were approved by the circuit court in February 2015. The court ultimately entered a third QDRO regarding another of Roberts' pensions in October 2015. ¶4 In May 2016, Perone moved the circuit court to find Roberts in contempt for violating the divorce judgment. She alleged that Roberts had failed to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a28b9bd-d31d-4cc3-8117-ed44126636db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"442 N.W.2d 545","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: parate issues for our consideration. However, the argument section of Roberts' brief addresses only the four issues identified above. We therefore confine our discussion to those four issues. 2 No. 2017AP2474 ¶3 In December 2014, Roberts signed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) regarding two of his pensions, and those orders were approved by the circuit court in February 2015. The court ultimately entered a third QDRO regarding another of Roberts' pensions in October 2015. ¶4 In May 2016, Perone moved the circuit court to find Roberts in contempt for violating the divorce judgment. She alleged that Roberts had failed to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a28b9bd-d31d-4cc3-8117-ed44126636db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575823-10575823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"442 N.W.2d 545","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ffirm.3 BACKGROUND ¶2 Roberts petitioned for divorce from Perone in May 2014. In October 2014, the circuit court entered a judgment of divorce that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) signed by the parties. The MSA required Roberts to make a property division equalization payment of $87,000 to Perone, consisting of monthly payments of $1000 from October 2014 through July 2019 and a lump sum payment in June 2019. The equalization payment was secured by a first mortgage on certain real estate located in Chetek that had been awarded to Roberts. 1 Although Perone was represented by counsel in the circuit court, b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10575943 Extracted reporter citation: 830 N.W.2d 647. Docket: 2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10575943 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: whether a contempt motion seeking to enforce a pension division provision of a divorce judgment, filed more than twenty years after the divorce judgment, was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.40. Johnson, 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶1. That judgment specifically called for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be filed with the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS), from which Johnson's former husband, Masters, was to eventually receive a pension. Id. ¶13 Their divorce judgment was entered in 1989. Id. Johnson found out in March 2010 that Masters had retired. Id., ¶8. She then attempted to file a QDRO with WRS, but was informed that it required Masters' a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: in a marital property agreement with his former wife, Kathy Schwab (n/k/a Siech), included in their divorce judgment No. 2019AP1200 entered in 1992. Siech filed a contempt motion seeking to enforce that particular provision—the division of Schwab's military pension—in 2017. Schwab argued that Siech's motion was barred by the time limits set forth in WIS. STAT. § 893.40 (2017-18),1 which generally precludes \"action upon a judgment or decree of a court\" after twenty years. ¶2 However, the trial court found that because obligations under a marital property agreement often extend beyond twenty years, it had the equitabl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: as no \"reasonable basis\" for not applying WIS. STAT. § 893.40 in Johnson. Id., 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶48 (Prosser, J., dissenting). He explained that some judgments \"require some additional step or steps to secure a right. Filing a QDRO protects the rights of the ‘alternate payee' with respect to both public and private retirement benefits.\" Id., ¶109. That was the case here, where \"Johnson's interest in a portion of Masters' pension was always contingent upon her taking steps to secure and enforce her rights\" but she \"did not do so until more than 20 years after the divorce judgment.\" Id., ¶64. Justice Prosser further noted that \"["}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df651734-07fa-48dc-ad8b-924fdacba18b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10575943-10575943","title":"CourtListener opinion 10575943","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"830 N.W.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: contempt motion seeking to enforce a pension division provision of a divorce judgment, filed more than twenty years after the divorce judgment, was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.40. Johnson, 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶1. That judgment specifically called for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be filed with the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS), from which Johnson's former husband, Masters, was to eventually receive a pension. Id. ¶13 Their divorce judgment was entered in 1989. Id. Johnson found out in March 2010 that Masters had retired. Id., ¶8. She then attempted to file a QDRO with WRS, but was informed that it required Masters' a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10577167 Extracted reporter citation: 741 N.W.2d 256. Docket: 2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10577167 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ded at mediation. Hahn did not file updated valuations with the court because Higgins was not updating his valuations with the court. At her counsel's request, Hahn provided the $1.1 million 401k valuation to Delphi Consulting Group for its use in preparing a QDRO because that figure matched the 401k valuation on Exhibits R14 and R9, the spreadsheets from the mediation. ¶11 In denying Higgins's WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion to reopen the judgment of divorce, the circuit court recognized that whether to grant the motion was within its discretion. The court found Hahn more credible than Higgins because his \"recoll"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: WI App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the mediation date and revea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2007 WI App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the media"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b45706a-6c28-4a84-9c63-6e320c73240f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577167-10577167","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"741 N.W.2d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the mediation date and revealed that it was $1.5 million. In light"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10577699 Extracted reporter citation: 768 N.W.2d 641. Docket: 2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10577699 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the market for sale and the equalization payment coming from the net proceeds from the sale of the home. The circuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the \"alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions.\" The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ircuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the \"alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions.\" The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 30. The final judgment of divorce, signed by the commissioner on April 13, 2021, expressly inco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the \"alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions.\" The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 30. The final judgment of divorce, signed by the commissioner on April 13, 2021, expressly incorporated the MSA by reference along with \"the Agreeme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6dfa383-03ca-4ce9-9113-667be77cc74f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10577699-10577699","title":"CourtListener opinion 10577699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"768 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t for sale and the equalization payment coming from the net proceeds from the sale of the home. The circuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the \"alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions.\" The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10578537 Extracted reporter citation: 634 N.W.2d 852. Docket: 2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10578537 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, nor does Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that \"[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)],\" and \"[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401(k)] staying whole and with Rebecca.\" Rebecca therefore asserts that \"[t]his issue was agreed upon and did not require"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): gift or inheritance or purchased that residence using funds acquired by gift or inheritance, nor does Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that \"[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)],\" and \"[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that \"[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)],\" and \"[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401(k)] staying whole and with Rebecca.\" Rebecca therefore asserts that \"[t]his issue was agreed upon and did not require"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd161fe7-63d0-4330-8b71-a84d80398dcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10578537-10578537","title":"CourtListener opinion 10578537","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 N.W.2d 852","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rt's discretionary decision if the court makes a rational and reasoned decision and applies the correct legal standard to the facts of record.\" Id. I. Down payment for the marital home ¶8 The circuit court awarded the parties' marital home to Romero in the property division. Rebecca contends that when the parties purchased the marital home, they used as a down payment the proceeds from the sale of a different residence, which Rebecca had purchased prior to the marriage. Rebecca asserts 3 No. 2023AP21 that the court should have awarded the entire amount of that down payment to her in the property division. ¶9 The circuit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bafff54b-70c3-40df-a484-ac4b55146724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864","title":"CourtListener opinion 10580864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10580864 Extracted case name: DOC-ADS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE MEMORANDUM. Extracted reporter citation: 994 F.3d 1020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10580864 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bafff54b-70c3-40df-a484-ac4b55146724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864","title":"CourtListener opinion 10580864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bafff54b-70c3-40df-a484-ac4b55146724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864","title":"CourtListener opinion 10580864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t 1028. To the extent McIver also alleges that EBPC, as a Plan3 fiduciary, and Boeing, as a functional fiduciary, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), were performing fiduciary functions when they continued to charge, deduct, and collect premiums after receiving his Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") notice stating that he was divorced, we conclude that McIver plausibly alleged that EBPC and Boeing were acting as fiduciaries when they continued to collect premiums in 2 According to the Policy, coverage for a dependent, including a \"lawful spouse,\" will terminate on the earliest of, among other things, \"the date the person ceases to be a Dep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bafff54b-70c3-40df-a484-ac4b55146724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864","title":"CourtListener opinion 10580864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tting by designation. Procedure 12(b)(6) order dismissing his second amended complaint (\"SAC\") with prejudice for failing to state a claim. McIver brought this action for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B), against Appellees the Boeing Company (\"Boeing\"), Employee Benefit Plans Committee (\"EBPC\"), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\"), and a claim for recovery of plan benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) against MetLife.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand in part, and affi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bafff54b-70c3-40df-a484-ac4b55146724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10580864-10580864","title":"CourtListener opinion 10580864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: To the extent McIver also alleges that EBPC, as a Plan3 fiduciary, and Boeing, as a functional fiduciary, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), were performing fiduciary functions when they continued to charge, deduct, and collect premiums after receiving his Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") notice stating that he was divorced, we conclude that McIver plausibly alleged that EBPC and Boeing were acting as fiduciaries when they continued to collect premiums in 2 According to the Policy, coverage for a dependent, including a \"lawful spouse,\" will terminate on the earliest of, among other things, \"the date the person ceases to be a Dep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10593929 Docket: 2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10593929 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement accounts. Husband challenged that order pursuant to Rules 60(b)(4) and (5) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court reviews the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the efficacy of the QDRO. I. Facts On December 31, 2002, Joseph A. Marshall filed for a divorce from his long-time wife Car"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 6, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015 REVERSED Leon Edward Green, of Leon E. Green, PC, of Aiken, for Petitioner. Gregory P. Harlow, of Harlow Law Offices, PA, of Aiken, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: The subject of this dispute is the distribution of husband's retirement accounts in a divorce proceeding. The final divorce decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: g-time wife Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \\the husband's savings and investment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf50d55-61f0-4393-96a7-a6b890c17acd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10593929-10593929","title":"CourtListener opinion 10593929","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \\the husband's savings and investment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70c5589a-cf7d-4e78-9b21-de63f905b82d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579","title":"CourtListener opinion 10595579","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10595579 Extracted case name: KISHA DEAN TREZEVANT v. STANLEY H. TREZEVANT. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10595579 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70c5589a-cf7d-4e78-9b21-de63f905b82d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579","title":"CourtListener opinion 10595579","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70c5589a-cf7d-4e78-9b21-de63f905b82d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10595579-10595579","title":"CourtListener opinion 10595579","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that criminal contempt qualifies as a misdemeanor offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-103. Wife disagrees that section 40-2-102(a) governs the statute of limitations in this case. Rather, she argues that, because the criminal contempt charges arose out of a domestic relations order, i.e., the January 5, 2021 order dividing the marital estate, that Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110(e) applies. Section 28-3-110(e) provides that, \". . . there is no time within which a judgment or decree in a domestic relations matter issued by a court with domestic relations jurisdiction pursuant to title 36 must be acted upon, unless otherwise s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10596913 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1187 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10596913 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: for an immediate transfer because it is impossible to extract a lump sum from a defined benefit pension plan to effectuate equitable distribution. Id. 23-24. She further argues that the trial court cannot simply enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to complete the proposed transfer. Id. at 24. Hence, she requests that we reverse the equitable distribution order and remand for the trial court to award to her Husband's defined contribution 401(k) account and supplement that award with additional assets to attain an -9- J-A11032-24 equitable distribution in light in the difference in the value b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: care.] [Husband] is in mostly good health and capable of employment. [He] is employed full-time working on power lines and responding to emergency calls for PP&L Electric Utilities [(\"PP&L\")]. [His] employment [includes a health benefit package and two retirement accounts: a 401(k) defined contribution plan valued at $84,786.60, as of April 1, 2022 and a defined benefit pension valued at $126,890.00, as of January 17, 2022. He] also is a landlord and receives rental income. Overall, [Husband] was the breadwinner, while [Wife] was the homemaker during their marriage. [Wife] and [Husband] had a good standard of living d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and responding to emergency calls for PP&L Electric Utilities [(\"PP&L\")]. [His] employment [includes a health benefit package and two retirement accounts: a 401(k) defined contribution plan valued at $84,786.60, as of April 1, 2022 and a defined benefit pension valued at $126,890.00, as of January 17, 2022. He] also is a landlord and receives rental income. Overall, [Husband] was the breadwinner, while [Wife] was the homemaker during their marriage. [Wife] and [Husband] had a good standard of living during their marriage. [Wife's] standard of living has declined since separation, but she is able to save som"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a337ca2-2a89-4150-b765-b0c5f7e6176f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10596913-10596913","title":"CourtListener opinion 10596913","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1187 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ferred distribution method that the trial court utilized in this case. Thus, to the extent that the trial court did not specifically reference the need for a QDRO, and presuming that Husband's pension is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), upon remand, the trial court must enter a QDRO assigning the designated portion of Husband's pension benefit to Wife as an alternate payee. See 17 West's Pa. Practice, Family Law § 23:4 (8th ed.). However, recognizing that a pension plan \"may even provide that a distribution may be made to an alternate payee before the participant (Footnote Continued Next"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10598038 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF HUSSAIN SALBI. Docket: 2-24-0322 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10598038 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: apacity and the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: \"[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry of any transfer documents or QDROs [qualified domestic relations orders] to effectuate this division. [Petitioner] shall cooperate in providing account information and executing any necessary documentation. [Respondent] shall be responsible for the related costs. The parties shall equally share in any post-judgment gains and losses prior to the division being effectuated.\" ¶9 Regarding the minors, Judge Hansen, after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: awarded $94,515 of the retirement and investment accounts ($46,580.14+($94,543.68/2)+$663.02). ¶8 Judge Hansen noted that the division of the retirement and investment accounts took into -3- 2024 IL App (2d) 240322-U consideration: (1) the value of each retirement account; (2) the parties' present income and economic circumstances; (3) petitioner's higher earnings; (4) that each party has future earning capacity and the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: \"[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: \"[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry of any transfer documents or QDROs [qualified domestic relations orders] to effectuate this division. [Petitioner] shall cooperate in providing account information and executing any necessary documentation. [Respondent] shall be responsible for the related costs. The parties shall equally share in any post-judgment gains and losses prior to the division being effectuated.\" ¶9 Regarding the minors, Judge Hansen, after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95c16ec3-f9b5-4f75-93fc-fab76c8a3593","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598038-10598038","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598038","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0322 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: pired after a final order, a petition for indirect civil contempt was not one of these methods. See In re Marriage of Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 116-118. As such, the court concluded that it did not have \"endless jurisdiction to graft new provisions to a property division contained in a Judgment of Dissolution.\" Thus, the court determined that it was without power to construct some equitable solution under the guise of enforcement or modification of the Judgment. On May 16, 2024, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's decision on the Petition to Modify and the Contempt Petition. ¶ 60 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 6"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10598423 Extracted case name: ERNEST J. NEDDER v. LAUREN E. NEDDER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10598423 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ng the assignment of prop- erty and the responsibility for debts when entering an order dissolving a marriage. 2. The defendant could not prevail on her claim that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign a value to the plaintiff's quasi-pension account prior to dividing the parties' property: this court presumed that the parties' property interest in the account was considered by the trial court when it made its equitable division of property; moreover, although the court did not state which valuation method it used, it was not required to do so, and, because the defendant failed to file a mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): olely for the children's medical expenses,'' (2) the bro- kerage account was ‘‘to be used solely for the children's postsecondary educational expenses,'' and (3) the draw account was ‘‘to be used solely for tax payments in 2022.'' The court ordered that a 401k account belonging to the plaintiff was to be equally divided between the parties, and permitted the plaintiff to retain the IRA and retirement brokerage accounts he had owned prior to the marriage. The court also awarded to the plaintiff an ‘‘RSM Capital Account'' and the PVA account. The court ordered that the defendant was to receive $5034 in weekl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: unt. The plaintiff testified 3 During the trial, the plaintiff testified that he was fifty-two years old. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13 Nedder v. Nedder that, contrary to the defendant's proposal, ‘‘the firm could not do a domestic relations order'' by making payments to her from the PVA account because pay- ments may only be made to those ‘‘in the capacity as owners or partners in the firm,'' and could not be made to the defendant because doing so ‘‘would bring along . . . regulatory issues around [Securities and Exchange Commission] independence, around conflicts, around . . . anything and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280bd340-3276-4dca-9a54-bd2be9619e3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10598423-10598423","title":"CourtListener opinion 10598423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: parties and various other witnesses, includ- ing, inter alia, financial experts for both parties. Both Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Nedder v. Nedder parties filed proposed orders that contained their respective proposals for property division, child sup- port, and alimony. In his proposed orders, the plaintiff requested, inter alia, that he be awarded three accounts—the ‘‘Fidelity HSA #0811'' (health savings account), the ‘‘Ameriprise brokerage #1133'' (brokerage account), and the ‘‘RSM US LLP Draw account'' (draw account)—with the understanding that they would be used for the limited pu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"697de592-07a4-44d3-9557-3f00835acec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942","title":"CourtListener opinion 10600942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10600942 Extracted case name: T. S. R. v. J. B. C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10600942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"697de592-07a4-44d3-9557-3f00835acec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942","title":"CourtListener opinion 10600942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"697de592-07a4-44d3-9557-3f00835acec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10600942-10600942","title":"CourtListener opinion 10600942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: notice under subsection (1) of this section, the party served shall file a written response with the court.\" ORS 107.135(14). And, as set forth above, the applicable UTCRs and the SLRs for Marion County contemplate a \"show cause\" process for motions to modify domestic relations orders. Father, following that framework, presented the trial court with a motion and proposed order to show cause why the custody judgment should not be modified to grant him parenting time. The motion and proposed order asked the court to make a discretionary call as to whether father's motion and supporting materials met the minimum thresh- old to require mot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b455b1-d7ef-4fa5-bbc2-1370601e6531","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601438","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10601438 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10601438 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b455b1-d7ef-4fa5-bbc2-1370601e6531","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601438","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b455b1-d7ef-4fa5-bbc2-1370601e6531","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601438-10601438","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601438","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: with his ability to safely parent\" A and S and that he \"has sexually abused another child which interferes with his ability to safely parent\" A and S. Mother admit- ted that she is unable to protect the children from father's activities due to \"the lack of a domestic relations order,\" and a jurisdictional trial was held to address the allegations against father. For purposes of that trial and to protect his right against self-incrimination in the pending criminal case, father agreed that the court and the parties would \"assume that it has been established that [he] engaged in criminal activities and sexual abuse of another child.\" The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10601667 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10601667 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: judgments dividing various deferred compensation accounts between the parties. Husband and wife were divorced in 2004. The trial court issued a dissolution judgment awarding wife half the value of husband's PERS member's account and directed wife to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to the court. Wife did not submit the QDRO until almost 15 years later, resulting in three sup- plemental judgments. Those judgments awarded wife her share of husband's deferred compensation accounts, a portion of the PERS benefit payments that husband alone had received after his retirement, and a percentage of husband's gross monthly retirement ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ing in three sup- plemental judgments. Those judgments awarded wife her share of husband's deferred compensation accounts, a portion of the PERS benefit payments that husband alone had received after his retirement, and a percentage of husband's gross monthly retirement benefit going forward. On appeal, husband argues that the supplemental judgments are inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of the dissolution judgment, and that the trial court used an incorrect rate of return in calculating the growth of his deferred compensation account. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that the 2004 dissolution judgment did not unambiguous"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: der (QDRO) and retains jurisdiction \"over these matters until the intent of this paragraph is car- ried out.\"1 Wife did not submit a QDRO to the court for 15 years. In the interim, husband retired. He elected to take a \"lump sum option 2\" payment of his PERS pension benefits; that is, at retirement, PERS paid husband a lump sum based on the amount in his member's account and a monthly ben- efit based on the amount of contributions that his employer 1 Beyond the facts stated in the 2004 dissolution judgment, the record is sparse. The supplemental judgments, which husband challenges, recite some his- torical facts tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014edc01-7987-4b42-b744-1fd34930c95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10601667-10601667","title":"CourtListener opinion 10601667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: however, is whether the 2004 dissolution judgment granting wife half his member's account also granted her a share of the asso- ciated benefits. On that issue, the 2003 version of the PERS statutes specified that a dissolution judgment may provide \"[t]hat the alternate payee [the member's former spouse] may elect to receive payment in any form of pension, annu- ity, retirement allowance * * * or other benefit [except a joint and survivor annuity] that would be available to the member under this chapter.\"9 ORS 238.465(2)(b) (2003). The statute also authorized the PERS Board to adopt rules to carry out that legislative intent. Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10602177 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10602177 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: [One] [account], less the sum of $172,516 distributed to [wife].\" In their dissolution proceeding, wife was represented by attorney Brown, and husband was represented by attor- ney Johnson. In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an \"alternate payee,\" \"to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . Deschutes County Circuit Court 13DS0598; A176750 523 P3d 163 In this marital dissolution case, husband appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion under ORCP 71 A or C to set aside a supplemental judgment dividing with wife his Tier One pension from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the judgment based on an oversight or omission by the dissolution court or under the court's inherent authority to correct an extraordinary error, because, inconsistent with the parties' general judgment, the supplemental j"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lliams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an \"alternate payee,\" \"to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved property set- tlement agreement incident to any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation\"). Williams drafted a QDRO that provides that wife is entitled to $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086a8c14-dcba-4aff-b2d1-8cdafd110fa6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602177-10602177","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602177","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: count], less the sum of $172,516 distributed to [wife].\" In their dissolution proceeding, wife was represented by attorney Brown, and husband was represented by attor- ney Johnson. In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an \"alternate payee,\" \"to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10602185 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10602185 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s- ferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; \"1.3 One-half of the martial portion of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be transferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; \"* * * * * \"2. Property Awarded to Husband: \"* * * * * \"2.2 The remainder of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan after transfer of Wife's one-half interest in the mari- tal portion of the plan as of December 31, 2018; \"2.3 The remainder of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan after transfer of Wife's one-half inter- est in the marital port"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: udge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. JAMES, P. J. Reversed and remanded. 500 Dadu and Dadu JAMES, P. J. This appeal involves the interpretation of a stip- ulated supplemental judgment governing the division of two of husband's defined-contribution retirement accounts. The principal issue is whether wife's marital portion of the accounts includes earnings (defined as gains, losses, divi- dends, and interest) accumulated between the dissolution date and the date of disbursement via Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). On appeal, husband argues that when the trial court approved wife's proposed QDROs awarding her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Nonprecedential Memo Op: 323 Or App 499 (2022) 501 support, custody, and parenting plan issues; however, it left some issues unresolved and, thus, warranted supplemental judgments, including the division of the property at issue in this case—husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and Intel Retirement Contribution Plan. On October 3, 2019, the trial court received both a mediated settlement agreement and exhibits outlining the division of the two accounts. In February 2020, the court entered a supplemental judgment incorporating the settlement terms, which read, in perti- nent part: \"1. Property Awarded to Wife: \"* * *"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0e61032-1d79-4814-b5aa-7927e4b447c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10602185-10602185","title":"CourtListener opinion 10602185","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: terms, which read, in perti- nent part: \"1. Property Awarded to Wife: \"* * * * * \"1.2 One-half of the marital portion of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be trans- ferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; \"1.3 One-half of the martial portion of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be transferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; \"* * * * * \"2. Property Awarded to Husband: \"* * * * * \"2.2 The remainder of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan after transfer of Wife's one-ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1060435 Extracted case name: RICHARD THOMAS BOGAN v. DORIS MAE BOGAN. Extracted reporter citation: 772 S.W.2d 48. Docket: E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1060435 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: astman Chemical, and that as a result, he would no longer receive a wage from his employer; and (2) that because of his retirement, Ms. Bogan would no longer need support payments, as she would receive half of his retirement income pursuant to the MDA and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Ms. Bogan answered that because the retirement was voluntary and foreseeable at the time of the MDA, no legally cognizable change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification or termination of the support payments. After holding hearings on the petition on February 19 and April 12, 1998, the chancery court found that Mr. Bogan's retirement was a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by encouraging employees to retire2; (2) that Mr. Bogan was qualified for full retirement under Eastman Chemical's then current point system, 1 Most importantly for purposes of this case, the parties agreed to an equal division of the value of Mr. Bo gan's retirement plan as it stood on the date of the d ecree. T his provision was implem ented by a Q ualified Do mestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on Se ptember 4, 1991. The QD RO named Ms. Bogan as an alternate payee on the Kodak Retirement Income Plan, and it provided that upon Mr. Bogan's retirement and his reaching pay status, M s. Bogan would receive 50 % of the gro ss"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: s agreed to an equal division of the value of Mr. Bo gan's retirement plan as it stood on the date of the d ecree. T his provision was implem ented by a Q ualified Do mestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on Se ptember 4, 1991. The QD RO named Ms. Bogan as an alternate payee on the Kodak Retirement Income Plan, and it provided that upon Mr. Bogan's retirement and his reaching pay status, M s. Bogan would receive 50 % of the gro ss amount o f the monthly retire ment bene fit as calculated o n July 11, 19 91. 2 Concerning the growing dissatisfaction with his job, Mr. Bogan testified that at the time of the divorce, he was empl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90933a36-9d54-44fe-bca5-c9b1230c5df3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1060435-1060435","title":"CourtListener opinion 1060435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"772 S.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mical, and that as a result, he would no longer receive a wage from his employer; and (2) that because of his retirement, Ms. Bogan would no longer need support payments, as she would receive half of his retirement income pursuant to the MDA and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Ms. Bogan answered that because the retirement was voluntary and foreseeable at the time of the MDA, no legally cognizable change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification or termination of the support payments. After holding hearings on the petition on February 19 and April 12, 1998, the chancery court found that Mr. Bogan's retirement was a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e9f54ca-0646-4f76-913c-056ffc8844f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061085","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061085 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061085 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e9f54ca-0646-4f76-913c-056ffc8844f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061085","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e9f54ca-0646-4f76-913c-056ffc8844f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061085","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rred by (1) receiving parol evidence where the parties' memorandum of agreement (the Agreement) is a fully integrated document into their final decree; (2) modifying the terms of the Agreement where there is no ambiguity; and (3) ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) when the trial court had no jurisdiction to do so because the final divorce did not provide for the entry of a QDRO. We find no error, and affirm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND On October 13, 1984, the parties married, and on March 2, 2005, the parties separated. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached an agreeme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e9f54ca-0646-4f76-913c-056ffc8844f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061085","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: his opinion is not designated for publication. parties signed the Agreement, which included the following provision: \"Wife shall receive 40% of the General Motors retirement and 40% of the United States Marine Corps retirement with a cap at $2,500 for each pension. In the event Wife remarries, the USMC pension shall be forfeited.\" The parties divorced in 2006, and the Agreement was incorporated into the final decree of divorce.1 Husband subsequently gave wife a check for $2,500 for her share of the General Motors retirement. Wife did not deposit the check and, instead, filed a motion with the trial court seekin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e9f54ca-0646-4f76-913c-056ffc8844f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061085-1061085","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061085","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ) receiving parol evidence where the parties' memorandum of agreement (the Agreement) is a fully integrated document into their final decree; (2) modifying the terms of the Agreement where there is no ambiguity; and (3) ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) when the trial court had no jurisdiction to do so because the final divorce did not provide for the entry of a QDRO. We find no error, and affirm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND On October 13, 1984, the parties married, and on March 2, 2005, the parties separated. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached an agreeme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061165 Docket: of the court to monitor Husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061165 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tinued on the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. \"The question of whether a particular order is a final judgment is a question of law that we review de novo.\" Carrithers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: following language: And this cause is continued on the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. \"The question of whether a particular order is a fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. \"The question of whether a particular order is a final judgment is a question of law that we review de novo.\" Carrithers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387fe0fb-74ea-438b-bc44-61ef9d02ae38","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061165-1061165","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061165","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the court to monitor Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ND The parties married on October 23, 1968 and separated on January 24, 2008. Wife filed a complaint for divorce, to which husband filed an answer and cross-complaint. On December 2, 2010, the trial court heard the parties' evidence and argument regarding equitable distribution and spousal support. On January 12, 2011, the trial court entered a \"Decree of Divorce, Equitable Distribution and Spousal Support.\" The trial court found that husband's brother loaned them $65,000 and that the loan was attached to the former marital residence. The trial court held that wife was responsible for twenty-five percent, or $16,250, of that l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061209 Docket: in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Szabo; The Condo Law Group, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. John P. Forest, II (StahlZelloe, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Susan W. Forest (wife) appeals the trial court's order finding that it lacked authority under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or to modify the final decree of divorce between wife and Christopher M. Forest (husband) so as to permit entry of wife's requested QDRO. John P. Forest, II, Esq. (executor) 1 has represented husband's * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Executor argues that this appeal must be dismissed due to wh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: On June 27, 2011, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce between Mr. and Mrs. Forest, which incorporated the provisions of their May 5, 2011 marital settlement agreement 3 (MSA). 4 The portion of the MSA that is pertinent to this appeal states: RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS 15. a. (i) The Wife's individual retirement account (IRA) and the Husband's 401(K) plan, shall be equalized through a transfer from the Husband's 401(k) plan of the amount necessary to effect such equalization, based on the values as of the date of the separation, to-wit: April 1, 2010, plus any appreciation or less any depreciation from the date of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he Deseret Mutual QDRO. Wife contended that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) permits modification of a final decree so long as the modification reflects the expressed intent of the final decree. 8 Wife also argues on appeal that the trial court erred under the federal Pension Protection Act of 2006 when it refused to enter the Deseret Mutual QDRO. The trial court expressly declined to consider whether the Deseret Mutual QDRO could be entered under federal law – given its finding that this QDRO could not be entered under Virginia law. On remand, the trial court will have the opportunity to consider the propriety of entering the D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f8b197-c562-4873-ad13-1e25dc06efb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061209-1061209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hich incorporated the provisions of their May 5, 2011 marital settlement agreement 3 (MSA). 4 The portion of the MSA that is pertinent to this appeal states: RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS 15. a. (i) The Wife's individual retirement account (IRA) and the Husband's 401(K) plan, shall be equalized through a transfer from the Husband's 401(k) plan of the amount necessary to effect such equalization, based on the values as of the date of the separation, to-wit: April 1, 2010, plus any appreciation or less any depreciation from the date of separation to the time of transfer, said transfer to be effected through the entry of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dec22dcd-c2e7-4506-b812-72c91dc3e4a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10614111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2011-186667","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10614111 Docket: 2011-186667. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10614111 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dec22dcd-c2e7-4506-b812-72c91dc3e4a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10614111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2011-186667","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dec22dcd-c2e7-4506-b812-72c91dc3e4a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10614111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2011-186667","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ) ordering Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dec22dcd-c2e7-4506-b812-72c91dc3e4a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10614111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2011-186667","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 211, 708"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dec22dcd-c2e7-4506-b812-72c91dc3e4a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10614111-10614111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10614111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2011-186667","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061765 Extracted case name: L.P. v. PRC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061765 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ), for appellant. Amy N. Tobias (David M. Levy; Stephens, Boatwright, Cooper, Coleman & Newton, P.C.; Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC, on brief), for appellee. James Carlton Craig, Jr., appellant/husband, appeals the trial court's modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which addressed the division of appellant's civil service retirement annuity. He contends the trial court erred by: (1) determining it had the jurisdiction to modify that order; (2) allowing Thelma Ruth Markham Craig, wife, to testify about the terms of the property settlement agreement (PSA), in violation of the parol evidence rule; (3) determi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: part. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered January 29, 2009, which decree affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the PSA, without being merged into the decree. The PSA provided, inter alia, for the division of husband's pension and retirement benefits: 11. HUSBAND'S Pension and Retirement Benefits: The WIFE shall receive thirty seven and one-half percent (37.5%) of the HUSBAND's gross monthly annuity with the Civil Service Retirement System (hereinafter \"CSRS\"). The WIFE shall receive the maximum Former Spouse Survivor Annuity (FSSA) available to her under law with respect to the HUSBAND's Civil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reverse in part. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered January 29, 2009, which decree affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the PSA, without being merged into the decree. The PSA provided, inter alia, for the division of husband's pension and retirement benefits: 11. HUSBAND'S Pension and Retirement Benefits: The WIFE shall receive thirty seven and one-half percent (37.5%) of the HUSBAND's gross monthly annuity with the Civil Service Retirement System (hereinafter \"CSRS\"). The WIFE shall receive the maximum Former Spouse Survivor Annuity (FSSA) available to her under law with respect"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46cf1d11-5dbc-4c4c-b293-90bf938842e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061765-1061765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ellant. Amy N. Tobias (David M. Levy; Stephens, Boatwright, Cooper, Coleman & Newton, P.C.; Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC, on brief), for appellee. James Carlton Craig, Jr., appellant/husband, appeals the trial court's modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which addressed the division of appellant's civil service retirement annuity. He contends the trial court erred by: (1) determining it had the jurisdiction to modify that order; (2) allowing Thelma Ruth Markham Craig, wife, to testify about the terms of the property settlement agreement (PSA), in violation of the parol evidence rule; (3) determi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10617652 Docket: 2016-001265. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10617652 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: habel, of Kennedy & Brannon, P.A., and W. Barry Bland, both of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Hattie Darlene Evans Boyce, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. SHORT, J.: Christopher M. Higgins (Husband) appeals the family court's decision to (1) order an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would require him to pay an additional $61,196.16 to Paula E. Higgins (Wife) over what he already paid pursuant to a prior QDRO that had been signed by the parties and approved by the family court and (2) hold him responsible for any legal fees incurred in the preparation of the amended QDRO. On appeal, Husband argues the family court (1) shoul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nor child and the division of the parties' marital debts and property. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Judge Bridges ordered the following regarding equitable distribution of the marital property: That [Wife] shall receive $182,500.00 from [Husband's] retirement account, and said amount shall constitute her entire equitable apportionment from his account. [Husband] shall retain any and all balances in his retirement/401k accounts over and above said $182,500.00 allocated to [Wife]. The division shall be done by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with the parties each being responsible for 50% of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ution of the marital property: That [Wife] shall receive $182,500.00 from [Husband's] retirement account, and said amount shall constitute her entire equitable apportionment from his account. [Husband] shall retain any and all balances in his retirement/401k accounts over and above said $182,500.00 allocated to [Wife]. The division shall be done by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with the parties each being responsible for 50% of the legal costs associated with the preparation of said QDRO. On July 1, 2015, the parties appeared again before Judge Bridges on a motion filed by Wife for a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a23645d-5c8f-498c-8cdb-ea3b4ca7ee4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617652-10617652","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-001265","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Kennedy & Brannon, P.A., and W. Barry Bland, both of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Hattie Darlene Evans Boyce, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. SHORT, J.: Christopher M. Higgins (Husband) appeals the family court's decision to (1) order an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would require him to pay an additional $61,196.16 to Paula E. Higgins (Wife) over what he already paid pursuant to a prior QDRO that had been signed by the parties and approved by the family court and (2) hold him responsible for any legal fees incurred in the preparation of the amended QDRO. On appeal, Husband argues the family court (1) shoul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10617842 Docket: 2016-002169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10617842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \\[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): paration. The family court awarded Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \\[T]he p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \\[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12b474a6-d71f-476a-b05f-fb7238d1e775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10617842-10617842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10617842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-002169","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , of Florence, and Marian Dawn Nettles, of Nettles Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent. LOCKEMY, C.J.: Alicia M. Rudick (Wife) appeals a family court order claiming the family court improperly valued several marital assets and therefore, the equitable distribution award to Brian R. Rudick (Husband) is incorrect. In addition, Wife argues the family court erred in awarding Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees to Husband. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have three minor children together. Throu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061808 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rife. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061808 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s (Jessica L. Leischner; Lieblich & Grimes, P.C., on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations proceeding, the circuit court in its final order of divorce denied a motion by Cheyep Nkopchieu (mother) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) permitting her to attach a retirement account belonging to Raymond Bernard Minlend (father) for the sole purpose of paying father's very considerable child support arrearage of over $28,000. On appeal, we hold that the circuit court committed reversible error when it found that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Hoy v. Hoy, 29 Va. App"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: llant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations proceeding, the circuit court in its final order of divorce denied a motion by Cheyep Nkopchieu (mother) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) permitting her to attach a retirement account belonging to Raymond Bernard Minlend (father) for the sole purpose of paying father's very considerable child support arrearage of over $28,000. On appeal, we hold that the circuit court committed reversible error when it found that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Hoy v. Hoy, 29 Va. App. 115, 510 S.E.2d 253 (1999). The record on appeal e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3); see Wilson v. Wilson, 18 Va. App. 193, 200, 442 S.E.2d 694, 698 (1994) (\"Under federal law, qualified domestic relations orders are an exception to ERISA's proscription against alienation and assignment of pension benefits.\"). ERISA states that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). According to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), a \"qualified domestic relations order\" is a domestic relations order (I) \"which creates or recognizes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2e7ce76-abe1-4cf0-ac63-faf28790feb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061808-1061808","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: hing father's retirement account. We find that neither Hoy nor any other provision of Virginia domestic relations law deprived the circuit court of authority to enter a QDRO pursuant to the procedures of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Therefore, we reverse the portion of the circuit court's final order of divorce denying mother's motion for entry of a QDRO and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Mother and father were married in Virginia on February 23, 2009, approximately eleven months after the birth of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10619558 Docket: 2021-000110. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10619558 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife argues the family court erred in excluding witness te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ville, for Appellant. David Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er dated July 1, 2010 (Divorce Decree), the family court granted Wife and Respondent David A. Miller (Husband) a divorce. In the same order, the family court ordered Wife's South Carolina Retirement account (PEBA Account) and Husband's American Funds account (401(k) Account) be \\equally divided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a291600f-506c-431a-a8b5-ffe4f8fa81ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10619558-10619558","title":"CourtListener opinion 10619558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-000110","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife argues the family court erred in excluding witness te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1061958 Extracted reporter citation: 165 S.W.3d 322. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061958 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eed to take to \"enforce [its] judgments and protect [its] dignity.\" 17 Matsumoto, 792 A.2d at 1227. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision to permit wife to participate via telephonic deposition instead of requiring her to appear in person. E. The QDRO and the Trial Court's Final Decree In his final assignment of error, husband contends that the trial court erred by entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that altered the final decree's valuation of the marital share of husband's GE Savings and Security Plan (the \"Plan\"). 18 In its final decree, the trial court stated: Ms. Prizzia shal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion plan is typically accomplished by tracing separately contributed funds.\" (citation omitted)); see also Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:24 (3d ed. 2005) (explaining why \"[i]t is generally error to classify a defined contribution retirement plan using the time-based coverture fraction used to classify defined benefit plans,\" and why \"[a]pplication of a time-based coverture to defined contribution plans creates a significant risk of reaching unjust results\"). The trial court's final decree defined the Plan's marital share as the amount of money that accrued between two specific dates—\"that whic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: court \"the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [§ 20-107.3]\" (emphasis added)); Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) (permitting modification of a final decree's division of a pension plan \"only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order\" (emphasis added)). - 23 - earnings, gains and losses on her share from December 31, 2002 until the date of distribution. The division shall be by a QDRO. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da2485da-b784-4792-aa32-9159c762e925","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1061958-1061958","title":"CourtListener opinion 1061958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"165 S.W.3d 322","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): f the current market value of [husband's] account.\" The trial court arrived at this nine percent figure by utilizing the \"coverture fraction\" that is typically applied to defined benefit plans. However, husband's Plan is not a defined benefit plan, but a defined contribution plan. As we have previously indicated, the coverture fraction is an inappropriate method to determine the marital share of a defined contribution plan. Mann v. Mann, 22 Va. App. 459, 465 n.6, 470 S.E.2d 605, 607 n.6 (1996) (\"Applying [the coverture] fraction to a defined contribution plan could lead to incongruous results, and such an approach is not ge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062143 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062143 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: om his employment. One represented a plan for hourly employees paid for by the company. A second plan known as the Merck Employee Stock Purchase and Savings Plan consisted of contributions from husband. On September 3, 2009, husband objected to a proposed qualified domestic relations order from wife that would have divided husband's interest in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. Husband maintained that under the agreement wife should receive only a share of the hourly employees plan, without any share in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. In a May 21, 2010 letter opinion, the trial court held wife should receive a share in both plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ner, on brief), for appellant. Nancy A. Frank (Nancy A. Frank, P.C., on brief), for appellee. I. INTRODUCTION James Allan Myers (husband) appeals a decision of the trial court granting his former spouse, Shelby Lynne Smith Myers (wife), a share in two retirement plans. 1 Husband argues a property settlement agreement (PSA) granted wife a share in only one of the plans. We affirm. II. BACKGROUND Given our resolution of this case, the relevant facts may be succinctly stated. Husband and wife separated on July 3, 2008. They entered into a PSA on July 25, 2008, that was prepared by husband's counsel. The PSA contain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: (quoting Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1984)). We agree with the trial court that Hale controls the interpretation of the agreement in this case. 2 The property settlement agreement in Hale provided the husband had \"a vested pension plan with his employer\" and that the wife would receive half \"of said pension plan provided to him through his employer.\" 42 Va. App. at 32, 590 S.E.2d at 68. Like this case, the husband argued the \"pension plan with his employer\" referred only to an employer-provided pension plan, not to a plan where the employee contributes, which the husband also pos"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc118633-c907-4127-a9a1-700a9ecb6745","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062143-1062143","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: loyment. One represented a plan for hourly employees paid for by the company. A second plan known as the Merck Employee Stock Purchase and Savings Plan consisted of contributions from husband. On September 3, 2009, husband objected to a proposed qualified domestic relations order from wife that would have divided husband's interest in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. Husband maintained that under the agreement wife should receive only a share of the hourly employees plan, without any share in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. In a May 21, 2010 letter opinion, the trial court held wife should receive a share in both plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062296 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062296 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: olds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the Court. At the time of the divorce, husband was employed at Reynolds Metals earning $80,100 per year, and wife was unemployed. In May 2009, husband was notified that his position was being eliminated. At the time, he was earning approximately $100,000 per year"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: final decree stated that husband's spousal support obligation would be as follows: * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. the difference between one-half of the monthly amount he receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): examining the evidence and the income and expense statements, the trial court found that husband \"voluntarily obligated himself on a mortgage for the second house,\" -3- and he had \"substantial assets,\" including two houses and funds in a bank account and 401(K) plan. His first house had no mortgage. Meanwhile, wife owned a condominium and made monthly mortgage payments. She also had an annuity. After his termination from employment, husband had an additional expense for health insurance; however, the trial court found that husband's other expenses were \"inflated\" because they included his fiancée's expense"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c3651ef-5965-4b43-907b-388c0d466ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062296-1062296","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062296","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lication. the difference between one-half of the monthly amount he receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the Court. At the time of the divorce, husband was employed at Reynolds Metals earning $80,100 per year, and wife was unemployed. In May 2009, husband was notified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062363 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062363 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: * v. Record No. 1204-10-4 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 2, 2010 MARINA A. HANEY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jane Marum Roush, Judge (James Christopher Haney, pro se, on brief). No brief for appellee. James Christopher Haney (husband) appeals four qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the trial court. Husband argues that the trial court erred by entering the QDROs because they do not conform to the final decree of divorce. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The parties married on July 29, 1992, separated on September 24, 2008, and divorced on December 10, 2009. The final decree of divorce divided equally the marital share of husband's retirement plans as follows: 4. IRA's: The following American Century IRA's held in husband's name are marital and shall be divided equally between the parties: IRA PLANS VALUE DATE OF HEARING * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. * * * * * * * Northeast Investors Trust – IRA $13,251.01 Northeast Investors Trust – Rot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ave the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section, including the authority to: * * * * * * * Modify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits pursuant to the United States Internal Revenue Code or other applicable federal laws, only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. Code §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb6bba0-6518-4601-8aab-c61f3002ebf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062363-1062363","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062363","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d No. 1204-10-4 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 2, 2010 MARINA A. HANEY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jane Marum Roush, Judge (James Christopher Haney, pro se, on brief). No brief for appellee. James Christopher Haney (husband) appeals four qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the trial court. Husband argues that the trial court erred by entering the QDROs because they do not conform to the final decree of divorce. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062530 Docket: for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062530 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: paration on June 1, 2003, through the date of the evidentiary hearing on March 15, 2007. The PSA also divided husband's pension from Philip Morris. The agreement specifically stated that \"the marital share of Husband's pension shall be divided 50/50, by a QDRO, by applying a coverture fraction2 to the accrued benefit as of the date of separation [June 1, 2003] 1 The parties have two children. Only one child was under the age of eighteen when the parties endorsed the agreement. No child support issues are raised in this appeal. 2 \"Coverture\" is an archaic term referring to the condition of being a married wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e's employment with that company (the denominator). 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property 149-63 (3rd ed. 2005). This fraction is then applied to the entire benefit at the time of the spouse's retirement to determine the marital portion of the retirement benefit. When, as here, the coverture fraction is applied to the accrued value in the pension plan as of the date of separation rather than as of the date of retirement, a slightly different coverture fraction is used – the numerator remains the same, but the denominator becomes the total time that the spouse worked for the company before the date of separation. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: QDROs), as well as a final order resolving all outstanding issues. Husband appeals from these April 9, 2008 orders. He argues that the trial court erred 1) in the amount of husband's profit sharing plan that it awarded to wife, 2) in the amount of husband's pension plan that it awarded to wife, 3) in ordering husband to provide life insurance for wife, and 4) in awarding attorney's fees to wife and not awarding attorney's fees to husband. Upon review of the record, we find the trial court erred only in ordering, under the facts of this case, that husband provide life insurance to wife, and we remand the case for f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6aad2a9e-af64-408f-a478-de2a8293d014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062530-1062530","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062530","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: e of his retirement. When husband filled out his paperwork to begin the distribution of the pension, he marked a box on the forms indicating that he wanted Philip Morris to pay out his pension \"as a single life annuity\" rather than requesting any joint and survivor annuity or any payment to wife. Husband then began receiving the full pension amount of $4,951.71 per month, until Philip Morris froze his benefits pending the outcome of this case. Wife did not receive any of the pension funds, either directly from Philip Morris or from husband. The parties agree that the current payouts under the pension plan cannot be altere"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062571 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062571 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: g at the date [husband] retired, May 31, 2005. She is further entitled to a continuation of the Survivor Benefit Annuity previously selected by [husband], which cost shall be paid from the gross proceeds of the retirement. (Emphasis added.) In the related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered to effect division of husband's military retirement, the court provided that \"[t]o the extent the Designated Agent is prohibited by law or regulation from paying the entire amount required by this order to [wife], [husband] shall personally pay any shortfall to [wife].\" Husband objected to the trial court's \"grant of retroactive military"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ewis Lowery, Jr.; Rinehart, Lowery, Strentz & Butler, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Kent Cusack (husband) appeals from an equitable distribution award directing payment to Deborah Cusack (wife) of a portion of his military retirement benefits. On appeal, husband contends the court erred in directing that wife receive a portion of the marital share of those retirement benefits commencing on the date of husband's retirement, which occurred after the parties separated but almost a year before wife filed her bill of complaint for divorce and over two years prior to the equitable distribution ev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y law or regulation from paying wife the entire amount required by the court's order, husband was personally responsible for paying wife any shortfall. We reverse that portion of the final decree ordering that payments of wife's share of husband's military pension were to commence on May 31, 2005, but hold the trial court had authority to order husband responsible for any payments due but not payable directly from the pension. We deny wife's request for attorney's fees and costs on appeal, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Husband entered the United States Army i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"383492fb-7319-4517-8c6f-5c0dcac96900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062571-1062571","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ate [husband] retired, May 31, 2005. She is further entitled to a continuation of the Survivor Benefit Annuity previously selected by [husband], which cost shall be paid from the gross proceeds of the retirement. (Emphasis added.) In the related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered to effect division of husband's military retirement, the court provided that \"[t]o the extent the Designated Agent is prohibited by law or regulation from paying the entire amount required by this order to [wife], [husband] shall personally pay any shortfall to [wife].\" Husband objected to the trial court's \"grant of retroactive military"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062677 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062677 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t, in February 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that \"Counsel for Defendant\" – at that time, Ruple – \"shall prepare\" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife had hired an attorney to research the status of the ASR pension QDRO and had hired a Certified Public Accountant to prepare it. Wife contends that Ruple is liable to her for these expenses"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: er, no relief was expressly sought from him below, and he did not file a brief on appeal to this Court as appellee. BACKGROUND The record below establishes that, in February 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that \"Counsel for Defendant\" – at that time, Ruple – \"shall prepare\" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: uary 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that \"Counsel for Defendant\" – at that time, Ruple – \"shall prepare\" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife had hired an attorney to research the status of the ASR pension QDRO and had hired a Certified Public Accountant to prepare it. Wife contends that Ruple is liable to her for these expenses"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd97a82-aad0-4c2c-9e71-b440a0c278b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062677-1062677","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tions alleging noncompliance with the circuit court's order entered in February 1997. See Steinberg, 21 Va. App. at 46, 461 S.E.2d at 423. In short, simply because Ruple was husband's counsel does not mean that she was in any way a party to the divorce and equitable distribution proceedings herself. In Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 641 S.E.2d 494 (2007), the Supreme Court of Virginia held: In the absence of authority granted by a statute, such as Code § 8.01-271.1, or a rule of court, such as Rule 4:12, . . . a trial -3- court's inherent power to supervise the conduct of attorneys practicing before it and to discipline"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10626862 Extracted reporter citation: 303 P.3d 214. Docket: 50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10626862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ates that withholdings and contributions will be governed by Idaho law applicable to PERSI. PERSI is a state-created retirement plan under I.C. § 59-1301, et seq., and PERSI accounts are an asset that can be 13 split between divorcing spouses pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. I.C. §§ 59-1317, -1319. The magistrate court evaluated all the evidence related to the PERSI Choice 401(k) plan and found that Chris's wages partially funded the account and Chris retained control over the funds in the account. The magistrate court further concluded that although penalties might exist for withdrawal, Chris could access the funds at any ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ount, unbeknownst to Shawnee. Chris preserved this recording for two years prior to instituting divorce proceedings and introduced it as evidence of Shawnee's intent to transmute the EJJTROS account to community property. 2 Chris and Shawnee have additional retirement accounts and other assets. The division of the other accounts and assets is not at issue on appeal. 2 In 2012, the City of Idaho Falls (the City), Chris's employer, and the local firefighters' union negotiated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rity Act. Id. at 559, 82 P.3d at 841. The Supreme Court noted that the Tier I benefits were not divisible by a court upon divorce. Id. at 560, 82 P.3d at 842. The other component, commonly called Tier II benefits, is an additional annuity that, like a private pension plan, is tied to the earnings and career service. Id. at 559-60, 82 P.3d at 841-42. The Tier II benefit also had a component similar to divorced spouse's benefits under the Social Security Act. Id. The wife sought a portion of the Tier II benefits pursuant to the divorce. Id. Chris argues the Tier 1 benefits are equivalent to the firefighters having their"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2f8a549-c70b-4bb2-95cb-49ad18be3c85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10626862-10626862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10626862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): iated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributing to Social Security, the City would contribute an equivalent amount of money into a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Each firefighter had to affirmatively elect and create a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Once a firefighter created the account, the City would make mandatory deposits to the account. Once those deposits were made, each firefighter, including Chris, had the ability to move or withdraw the funds. After marriage, Chris moved into Shawnee's house on Nat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b42647b-ed4c-4a2e-812a-29e1c3ccdfbd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062747","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1062747 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062747 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b42647b-ed4c-4a2e-812a-29e1c3ccdfbd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062747","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b42647b-ed4c-4a2e-812a-29e1c3ccdfbd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062747","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be a non-taxable event incident to divorce. (Emphasis added.) Husband's attorney prepared the final decree, which did not provide the rate for determining the gains or losses. On January 28, 2008, the trial court entered a retirement benefits court order (QDRO), which stated in part: This Order shall apply to the Employee's Thrift Savings Plan account. There is hereby assigned to the Former Spouse, the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS [sic] and 50/100 DOLLARS ($152,538.50), from the Employee's Thrift Savings Plan account as of October 4, 2007, plus earnings and/or lo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b42647b-ed4c-4a2e-812a-29e1c3ccdfbd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1062747-1062747","title":"CourtListener opinion 1062747","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ] Thrift Savings Plan which was stipulated to be one hundred fifty-two thousand five hundred thirty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($152,538.50), plus gains and minus losses on said sum from October 4, 2007 to the date on which such sum is transferred to a retirement account of [wife's] choosing. Such transfer shall be a non-taxable event incident to divorce. (Emphasis added.) Husband's attorney prepared the final decree, which did not provide the rate for determining the gains or losses. On January 28, 2008, the trial court entered a retirement benefits court order (QDRO), which stated in part: This Order shall apply t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71790da7-f396-4b83-b208-2a4b27b297e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070","title":"CourtListener opinion 10631070","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10631070 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10631070 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71790da7-f396-4b83-b208-2a4b27b297e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070","title":"CourtListener opinion 10631070","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71790da7-f396-4b83-b208-2a4b27b297e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10631070-10631070","title":"CourtListener opinion 10631070","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of Cook County that mandates that Plaintiff's partitions should be paid to his former spouse. Plaintiff also objects to the Report and Recommendation claiming that this Court has authority to review a decision of the RRB. In summary, Plaintiff challenges a domestic relations order of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over either of these matters. First, it is well established that \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1063116 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063116 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oner in Chancery's failure to recommend or address . . . [appellant's] survivor annuity benefit request\" from husband's CSRS pension. Both parties request attorney's fees on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1 A COAP is similar to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), required by federal law to distribute a marital share of a party's federal pension. BACKGROUND On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the prevailing party below. Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). So viewed, the record reflects that husband was employed by the United States g"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: fe \"took care of [their] children, their school work, everything.\" Wife also worked outside the home throughout the marriage, operating a small beauty parlor. The parties owned a Southern Farm Bureau IRA Annuity issued to wife. Wife owned no other separate retirement plan or funds, but was eligible for Social Security Benefits. Husband's enrollment in CSRS precluded his eligibility for Social Security Benefits. Following the parties' separation, husband changed the beneficiary of his Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (\"FEGLI\") policy from wife to the parties' son. The trial court referred matters related to equitabl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Lawrence D. Diehl for appellant. R. Scott Pugh for appellee. Vicky Scott McGinniss (\"wife\") contends that the trial court erred in its award to her of her marital share of John L. McGinniss' (\"husband\") federal Civil Service Retirement System (\"CSRS\") pension benefits. Specifically, she argues that the trial court erred in entering its Court Order Acceptable for Processing (\"COAP\")1 limiting her marital share of husband's CSRS pension to a fixed amount calculated as if husband retired on the date of separation, July 10, 2001, rather than when he actually retired and became eligible to receive his pension; in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"722c5b14-76f5-4281-b8cc-f813296801f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063116-1063116","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ancery's failure to recommend or address . . . [appellant's] survivor annuity benefit request\" from husband's CSRS pension. Both parties request attorney's fees on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1 A COAP is similar to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), required by federal law to distribute a marital share of a party's federal pension. BACKGROUND On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the prevailing party below. Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). So viewed, the record reflects that husband was employed by the United States g"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1063237 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063237 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: IER COUNTY Jeffrey W. Parker, Judge Christopher W. Schinstock (Kyle F. Bartol; Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: g the wife 50% of the husband's \"gross retirement annuity benefits (prior to any deduction therefrom).\" After the divorce but prior to his retirement, the husband remarried. The second wife received a survivor benefit as part of the husband's civil service retirement benefit that significantly * Judge Fitzpatrick participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on March 31, 2006, and thereafter by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). reduced his monthly benefit. It reduced the husband's monthly benefit, which he began to receive August 1, 2005, by 10% or $405. On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married August 1, 1970, separated August 1, 1994, and divorced December 18, 1996. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c55bfb10-eabf-4e20-949c-e52e540b2974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063237-1063237","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Jeffrey W. Parker, Judge Christopher W. Schinstock (Kyle F. Bartol; Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1063321 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063321 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Carl Francis Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the dispute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court. I. BACKGROUND The parties were married on June 26, 1965, and separated on October 23, 2002. Wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce in the Circ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Frankie C. Coyner (Law Offices of Frankie C. Coyner, on brief), for appellant. Linda Schorsch Jones (Poindexter & Schorsch, on brief), for appellee. Judith Anne Irwin appeals a trial court decision regarding the division of Carl Francis Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the dispute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court. I. BACKGROUND The parties were married on June 26, 1965, and separated on October 23, 2002. Wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce in the Circ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b186106-e958-4446-873b-e51236a39c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063321-1063321","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: of the legislative enactment of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) was \"to protect the interests of pension recipients from the unintended consequences of improperly or incomplete drafted pension orders. . . .\" Report of the Family Law Section of the Virginia State Bar on Equitable Distribution of Property in Divorce Proceedings, House Document No. 19, at 15-16 (1991). The statutory reservation permits \"the court to revise its orders to comply with language required by federal law to effectuate the intended pension award, but not to substantively change the pension award itself.\" Id. The House document recognized that \"the integrity and enforceabi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1063366 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063366 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Y OF CHESAPEAKE V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge Henry M. Schwan for appellant. Regina Amick (Catherine A. Nelson; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: er is awarded a share of the plaintiff's pension based on fifteen (15) years of marriage contemporaneous with the employment by the plaintiff. The final decree was not appealed. Upon learning that husband had retired from his employment and was receiving retirement benefits, wife sought to enforce the provisions of the final decree of divorce. Wife filed a petition for a rule to show cause, along with a notice to enter a QDRO, to hold husband in contempt for not paying wife her share of husband's pension. -2- The court held a hearing on February 4, 2004, on the rule to show cause. Husband testified he retired November 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The parties married on Novembe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1368ceb7-4fa8-40e9-9770-de6e69e6a24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1063366-1063366","title":"CourtListener opinion 1063366","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: PEAKE V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge Henry M. Schwan for appellant. Regina Amick (Catherine A. Nelson; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1064033 Extracted case name: M.E.D. v. J.P.M. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064033 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: plit equally between the parties.\" Id. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 440. In April -5- 2004, the trial court entered a final decree incorporating the parties' agreement. Id. However, the wife did not start receiving her share of the pension payments until after a QDRO was approved and entered by the court in September 2004. Id. at 291, 623 S.E.2d at 440. The wife subsequently \"asked the [trial] court to order [the] husband to pay her the accrued amount of one-half of the pension payments from the date of entry of the final decree,\" id., but the court denied the wife's request, id. at 292, 623 S.E.2d at 441. On appeal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 459 (1991))). In Irwin, following the wife's filing of a bill of complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement in January 2004. 47 Va. App. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 439-40. The parties' agreement provided that the husband's pension, which the husband was already receiving, would \"be split equally between the parties.\" Id. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 440. In April -5- 2004, the trial court entered a final decree incorporating the parties' agreement. Id. However, the wife did not start receiving her share of the pension payments until after a QDRO was approved and entered by the court i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): als from the final decree of divorce entered by the Circuit Court of Stafford County (trial court) on September 10, 2007. On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in (1) awarding Pamela Joy Rosedale (wife) more than 50% of the present value of his 401(K) account, (2) awarding wife 65% of the overall value of the marital property, (3) classifying a sailboat titled in his name as marital property, (4) awarding wife permanent spousal support in the amount of $3,110 per month, and (5) failing to order the return of the cash bond he posted for his appeal to the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we aff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61da1663-68cd-4616-96fa-04c79fa5502a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064033-1064033","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: anding of the disposition of this appeal. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties were married in July 1992. One child was born of the marriage in November 1992. On February 3, 2005, wife filed for divorce and requested, inter alia, that the court make an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets and award her permanent spousal support. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on those issues on April 27 and May 25, 2007. The issue of child support was also before the trial court on husband's appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Following the presentation of evidence, the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1064474 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064474 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: LLIAM COUNTY Leroy F. Millette, Jr., Judge Catherine S. Croft (Farrell & Croft, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Joyce M. Henry-Schargorodski (Gaughan & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit retirement plan. Wife asks that the QDRO be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the trial court's order. On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: TY Leroy F. Millette, Jr., Judge Catherine S. Croft (Farrell & Croft, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Joyce M. Henry-Schargorodski (Gaughan & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbfb050b-5311-4606-899c-62f09ffdaec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064474-1064474","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: han & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit retirement plan. Wife asks that the QDRO be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the trial court's order. On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb694a5e-a6ff-427f-b328-075ad97bb667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008","title":"CourtListener opinion 10645008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"31-4. No notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10645008 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Brown. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 31-4. No notice of. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10645008 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb694a5e-a6ff-427f-b328-075ad97bb667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008","title":"CourtListener opinion 10645008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"31-4. No notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb694a5e-a6ff-427f-b328-075ad97bb667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008","title":"CourtListener opinion 10645008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"31-4. No notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nts and Gallant-Jones assert that: (1) claims against Judges Poncin and Clark are barred 7 The Court presumes that Brown's inclusion of an extra zero was a typo. See Compl. 96 (\"Plaintiff is seeking not less than $ 2,300,0000.00 in the loss of her lifetime pension annuity . . . .\"). by the statute of limitations, Judge Defendants Mot. Dismiss 4–5; (2) Rooker-Feldman deprives the Court of jurisdiction for the claims stemming from final state-court judgments, id. at 5–9; (3) Younger abstention deprives the Court of jurisdiction for the claims related to ongoing state- court proceedings, id. at 10–12; and (4) judicia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb694a5e-a6ff-427f-b328-075ad97bb667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008","title":"CourtListener opinion 10645008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"31-4. No notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: n rem custody award or to undo a divorce decree\"). Second, she requests \"injunctive relief from the unconstitutional 40 ILCS 5/1-119\" QILDRO entered in her case. Compl. 96. A QILDRO is \"an Illinois court order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a member's accrued benefits in a retirement system\" that is \"is issued pursuant to\" 40 ILCS 5/1-119 \"and Section 503(b)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.\" 40 ILCS 5/1-119(a)(6). It is not clear from the record what the QILDRO order in Brown's case says, but regardless, the Court cannot di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb694a5e-a6ff-427f-b328-075ad97bb667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10645008-10645008","title":"CourtListener opinion 10645008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"31-4. No notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: from presiding over her cases. Id. at 95. She also seeks relief from their orders, such as the sanctions restricting her filings and ordering her to pay attorneys' fees. She seeks further relief \"from the unconstitutional 40 ILCS 5/1-119 Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order [(\"QILDRO\")] of which not one Judge who presided over Plaintiff's case has taken the time to look into.\" Id. at 96. She asserts that the unconstitutionality of the QILDRO should be the basis of injunctive relief to prevent any judge from finalizing the Divorce Proceeding. She asks that the Court enter a default judgment for a permanent legal separation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387d7d24-dcb8-473d-ac16-1f0fd2716aef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1064615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064615 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387d7d24-dcb8-473d-ac16-1f0fd2716aef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387d7d24-dcb8-473d-ac16-1f0fd2716aef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n, Judge Emmet D. Alexander (Gates & Alexander, PLC, on brief), for appellant. (John H. Click, Jr.; Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is consistent with the final decree of divorce. We hold that it is not, and we reverse the order and remand for entry of a proper QDRO. I. On July 24, 2000, Mildred B. Baker was divorced from her husband, Charles H. Baker, by a final decree that affirmed, ratified, and incorporated their property settlement agreement. In pertinent part, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"387d7d24-dcb8-473d-ac16-1f0fd2716aef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064615-1064615","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Emmet D. Alexander (Gates & Alexander, PLC, on brief), for appellant. (John H. Click, Jr.; Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is consistent with the final decree of divorce. We hold that it is not, and we reverse the order and remand for entry of a proper QDRO. I. On July 24, 2000, Mildred B. Baker was divorced from her husband, Charles H. Baker, by a final decree that affirmed, ratified, and incorporated their property settlement agreement. In pertinent part, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1064891 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064891 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ve calculated the value of a single life annuity to have been $721.47. Using that figure, husband argued below that wife was entitled to no more than $360.74 from his monthly pension payments ($721.47 x 50%). -4- in the April 5, 2006 decree and entered a qualified domestic relations order consistent therewith on April 19, 2006. This appeal followed. II. RULE 1:1 AND CODE § 20-107.3(K)(4) On appeal, husband contends the trial court substantively modified the terms of the August 21, 1986 final decree of divorce more than twenty-one days after entry of the decree, in violation of Rule 1:1, when it awarded wife a share of his pension fr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: stribution of the marital share of a pension. See Mosley v. Mosley, 19 Va. App. 192, 198, 450 S.E.2d 161, 165 (1994). In pertinent part, this code section provides: The court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension . . . or retirement benefits, whether vested or nonvested, which constitutes marital property and whether payable in a lump sum or over a period of time. . . . However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such benefits are payable. . . . \"Marital share\" means that portion of the total interest, the right to which was earned during the marriage and before the last"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , for appellant. John S. Huntington for appellee. Dennis Lee Strausbaugh (husband) appeals from the trial court's April 5, 2006 decree awarding his former wife, Brenda Britt Strausbaugh, n/k/a Brenda Britt Monroe (wife), half of the marital share of his pension, pursuant to the terms of the parties' final decree of divorce. Husband contends that, in making that award, the trial judge erroneously (1) modified substantive terms of the divorce decree in violation of Rule 1:1, (2) used the statutory marital share formula rather than the actual value of the pension as of the date of the parties' separation to calcul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08e95335-0b73-4ae0-8688-4e0bbe3a8242","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1064891-1064891","title":"CourtListener opinion 1064891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ted the value of a single life annuity to have been $721.47. Using that figure, husband argued below that wife was entitled to no more than $360.74 from his monthly pension payments ($721.47 x 50%). -4- in the April 5, 2006 decree and entered a qualified domestic relations order consistent therewith on April 19, 2006. This appeal followed. II. RULE 1:1 AND CODE § 20-107.3(K)(4) On appeal, husband contends the trial court substantively modified the terms of the August 21, 1986 final decree of divorce more than twenty-one days after entry of the decree, in violation of Rule 1:1, when it awarded wife a share of his pension fr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10649934 Extracted reporter citation: 396 F.3d 96. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10649934 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: od (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) The Court held a Fairness Hear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * In re MedStar ERISA Litigation CIV. NO. JKB-20-1984 * * * * x * x * x we x * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff asks that the Court: (1) approve the Proposed Settlement (ECF No. 121-1); (2) maintain certification"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): at 9.) This reflects that Plaintiff took significant action to protect the interests of the Class, which justifies the approval of the $15,000 award. Further, the requested award is in line with—and indeed more modest than—that obtained in other ERISA and 401(k) litigation in this Circuit. See, e.g., Savani v. URS Pro. Sols. LLC, 121 F. Supp. 3d 564, 577 (D.S.C. 2015) (explaining that \"[a] substantial incentive award is appropriate in this complex ERISA case given the benefits accruing to the entire class in part resulting from [the class representative's] efforts\" and approving a $15,000 award); Kelly, 2020 WL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a1e7849-5331-4442-a838-8653ae390fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649934-10649934","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the Plan at any time during the Class Period (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10649957 Extracted reporter citation: 396 F.3d 96. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10649957 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: od (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) The Court held a Fairness Hear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * In re MedStar ERISA Litigation CIV. NO. JKB-20-1984 * * * * x * x * x we x * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff asks that the Court: (1) approve the Proposed Settlement (ECF No. 121-1); (2) maintain certification"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): at 9.) This reflects that Plaintiff took significant action to protect the interests of the Class, which justifies the approval of the $15,000 award. Further, the requested award is in line with—and indeed more modest than—that obtained in other ERISA and 401(k) litigation in this Circuit. See, e.g., Savani v. URS Pro. Sols. LLC, 121 F. Supp. 3d 564, 577 (D.S.C. 2015) (explaining that \"[a] substantial incentive award is appropriate in this complex ERISA case given the benefits accruing to the entire class in part resulting from [the class representative's] efforts\" and approving a $15,000 award); Kelly, 2020 WL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"316715a4-bdd0-48d9-85ad-1b5f42b16cf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10649957-10649957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10649957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"396 F.3d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the Plan at any time during the Class Period (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065036 Extracted case name: KAREN THOMPSON SCOGGINS v. LARRY BROWDER SCOGGINS. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065036 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: addressing the 401(k) further ordered that \"Defendant shall not encumber, transfer, liquidate or dissipate the funds from this 401(k) plan until after the debt listed in paragraph 13 is paid and Plaintiff's interest in the [401(k)] is transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" The paragraph addressing the 401(k) further stated that if Plaintiff's interest in the 401(k) plan when added to other property granted to Plaintiff in the divorce did not equal the net marital estate received by Defendant in the divorce, then Defendant shall owe to Plaintiff \"a sum of money equal to this difference . . . .\" A separate paragraph of the Fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to dismiss, the Trial Court held that \"the bankruptcy discharged Defendant's obligation to pay the debts that are identified in the final judgment, but Defendant's bankruptcy did not discharge Defendant's obligation to transfer so much of his 401(k) plan and pension plan to Plaintiff that the Court may find to be the property of Plaintiff.\" The parties filed a joint statement of undisputed material facts. Among other things, the joint statement agreed that a notice of the Meeting of Creditors that listed January 16, 2001, as the deadline to file complaints with the bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): No. 98-0224 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor FILED OCTOBER 23, 2003 No. E2002-02923-COA-R3-CV Karen Thompson Scoggins (\"Plaintiff\") and Larry Browder Scoggins (\"Defendant\") were divorced in 2000. The divorce judgment ordered Defendant to use funds from his 401(k) plan to pay off certain marital debts and then to convey the remainder of the 401(k) to Plaintiff. Defendant did not do this. Instead, Defendant filed for bankruptcy, listed Plaintiff as a creditor, and was granted a discharge in bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a complaint in Chancery Court (\"Trial Court\") seeking to enforce the divorce judgment. Defendant clai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e257133-6f43-4960-99a3-1deb9c7687c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065036-1065036","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065036","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g the 401(k) further ordered that \"Defendant shall not encumber, transfer, liquidate or dissipate the funds from this 401(k) plan until after the debt listed in paragraph 13 is paid and Plaintiff's interest in the [401(k)] is transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" The paragraph addressing the 401(k) further stated that if Plaintiff's interest in the 401(k) plan when added to other property granted to Plaintiff in the divorce did not equal the net marital estate received by Defendant in the divorce, then Defendant shall owe to Plaintiff \"a sum of money equal to this difference . . . .\" A separate paragraph of the Fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10654013 Extracted reporter citation: 429 U.S. 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654013 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped her, allegedly with the assistance of AT&T, and she eventually moved to Texas \"for her safety.\" (Doc. Nos. 1, 17.) In Texas, in 2017, she had two Qualified Domestic Relation Orders (\"QDROs\") drafted, which she presented to South Carolina state court Judge Wayne Creech for signature. (Id.) Judge Creech did not sign these QRDOs, a decision Plaintiff argues was made \"in retaliation because the entire county was involved in fraud for profit schemes\" to usurp a prior arbitration agreement and steal her assets. (Id.) These documents ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: divorced her husband, Michael Kimner (\"ex-husband\"), in 2011 after fourteen years of marriage. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Her ex-husband was ostensibly employed by Duke Energy Corporation (\"Duke\") for a length of time sufficient to create some stake in two Duke 401K retirement plans (\"the Plans\"), namely the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan (\"RCBP\") and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan (\"RSP\"). (Doc. Nos. 12-3, 12-5.) The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") governs the Plans and their benefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: eate some stake in two Duke 401K retirement plans (\"the Plans\"), namely the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan (\"RCBP\") and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan (\"RSP\"). (Doc. Nos. 12-3, 12-5.) The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") governs the Plans and their benefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped her, allegedly with the assistance of AT&T, and she eventually moved to Texas \"for her safety.\" (Doc. Nos. 1, 17.) In Texas, in 2017, she had two Qualified Domestic Relation Orders (\"QDROs\") drafted, which she pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8f0790f-0eda-453c-9d82-53ab26eaffd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654013-10654013","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"429 U.S. 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00369-FDW-DCK AUDREY KIMNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) DUKE ENERGY 401K AND RETIREMENT ) SAVINGS PLAN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Duke Energy 401K and Retirement Savings Plan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 13, 15, 17), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d35797-9857-4999-94b2-0c3a9e0a9750","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10654083 Extracted reporter citation: 674 F.3d 369. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654083 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d35797-9857-4999-94b2-0c3a9e0a9750","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d35797-9857-4999-94b2-0c3a9e0a9750","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: No. 12.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan; Plaintiff failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance; and Plaintiff failed to show any duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff for the status of the First Lawsuit, any breach of such duty, or any alleged damages that resulted from said breach. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 3–4.) Additionally, the Court's Order also explained Plaintiff failed to assert any a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d35797-9857-4999-94b2-0c3a9e0a9750","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654083-10654083","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan; Plaintiff failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance; and Plaintiff failed to show any duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff for the status of the First Lawsuit, any breach of such duty, or any alleged damages that resulted from said breach. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 3–4.) Additionally, the Court's Order also explained Plaintiff failed to assert any a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10654121 Extracted case name: LLC v. NTE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654121 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: st of the QJSA awarded to Alternate Payee.\" (Id., p. 614.) In April 2013, Plaintiff and the Alternate Payee submitted the DRO to the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator provided a Determination Report stating the DRO \"meets the requirements for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)\" and the Plan \"will distribute benefits to the [A]lternate [P]ayee in accordance with the order and Plan terms.\" (Id., p. 354–356.) EIDP announced, effective November 2018, any further accumulation of benefits would cease on account of significant corporate restructuring. (Id., p. 194–95.) As a result, despite still being employed, Plaintiff was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: TES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., f/k/a E.I. DUPONT DE ) NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ) CORTEVA, INC; THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE ) BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) Defendants. ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report, (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 31), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 29). These matters have been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 34,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., f/k/a E.I. DUPONT DE ) NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ) CORTEVA, INC; THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE ) BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) Defendants. ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report, (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 31), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 29). These matters have been fully br"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb29dff0-3ce1-4c03-b573-50aff317c773","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654121-10654121","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654121","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: and Company (\"DuPont\"); Corteva Inc.; the Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (collectively \"Defendants\"). Plaintiff brings three claims against Defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"): (1) denial of benefits claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) statutory penalties claim under 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4); and (3) attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). Plaintiff's claims arise out of his employment with EIDP, Inc. and alleged denial of benefits under the Pension and Retirement Plan (\"Plan\"). Plaintiff was an employee o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3144340-393d-48cf-85ee-f323c7333fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10654158 Extracted reporter citation: 674 F.3d 369. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654158 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3144340-393d-48cf-85ee-f323c7333fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3144340-393d-48cf-85ee-f323c7333fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (Doc. No. 22.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, and failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance. (Doc. No. 20, pp. 6–11.) The Court believes Plaintiff intended to file her Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Relief under this rule constitutes \"an extraordinary remedy that should not be awarded ex"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3144340-393d-48cf-85ee-f323c7333fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10654158-10654158","title":"CourtListener opinion 10654158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"674 F.3d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 22.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, and failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance. (Doc. No. 20, pp. 6–11.) The Court believes Plaintiff intended to file her Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Relief under this rule constitutes \"an extraordinary remedy that should not be awarded ex"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f22bda59-f7af-4545-bf67-94e73a92037c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 U.S. 806","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065501 Extracted reporter citation: 422 U.S. 806. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f22bda59-f7af-4545-bf67-94e73a92037c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 U.S. 806","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f22bda59-f7af-4545-bf67-94e73a92037c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 U.S. 806","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 6 JOYCE WRIGHT BLYTHE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge Paul M. Blythe, pro se. Donald E. Gulledge (Gordon, Dodson, Gordon & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe (\"husband\") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe (\"wife\") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's \"motion for gains and/or losses\"; (2) \"changing the allocation of a marital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f22bda59-f7af-4545-bf67-94e73a92037c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 U.S. 806","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe (\"husband\") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe (\"wife\") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's \"motion for gains and/or losses\"; (2) \"changing the allocation of a marital asset that was incorporated into the final divorce decree\"; (3) \"disavowing\" Rule 1:1; (4) \"allowing the [wife's] attorney to set the gains\" for the QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f22bda59-f7af-4545-bf67-94e73a92037c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065501-1065501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 U.S. 806","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: IGHT BLYTHE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge Paul M. Blythe, pro se. Donald E. Gulledge (Gordon, Dodson, Gordon & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe (\"husband\") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe (\"wife\") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's \"motion for gains and/or losses\"; (2) \"changing the allocation of a marital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10655957 Extracted reporter citation: 641 F.3d 560. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10655957 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of \"a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being the number of months of credited service during the marriage, and the denominator . . . being the total months of service credited to [Defendant] under the Pension Plan at the time of his retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: zarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of \"a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being the number of months of credited service during the marriage, and the denominator . . . being the total months of service credited to [Defendant] under the Pension Plan at the time of his retirement.\" Ud. J 15.) The QDRO also designated Ms. Irizarry as Defendant's \"surviving spouse for purposes of a Qualified Joint and S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tatement of Facts Defendant was formerly employed by Verizon Communications Inc. (\"Verizon\") and its predecessor, Bell Atlantic Corporation (\"Bell Atlantic\") until 2010. (Am. Compl. ¥§ 7, 17, ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff is a fiduciary of the Verizon Management Pension Plan (the \"Plan\" or \"Pension Plan\").' (/d. 13.) During Defendant's employment, he participated in Bell Atlantic's pension plan, which eventually became the current Plan. (/d. { 7.) The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcff237f-ee1b-4913-8879-d4d2ba1b52bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10655957-10655957","title":"CourtListener opinion 10655957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 F.3d 560","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: or \"Pension Plan\").' (/d. 13.) During Defendant's employment, he participated in Bell Atlantic's pension plan, which eventually became the current Plan. (/d. { 7.) The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of \"a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a502d9-803f-4adb-b72c-71287b7aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657","title":"CourtListener opinion 10656657","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10656657 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10656657 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a502d9-803f-4adb-b72c-71287b7aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657","title":"CourtListener opinion 10656657","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a502d9-803f-4adb-b72c-71287b7aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657","title":"CourtListener opinion 10656657","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s in the Complaint are varied and wide- reaching and concern the allegedly unlawful conduct of others. Plaintiff demands $2.13 million that Defendant and other unnamed parties allegedly owe him for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), attorney malpractice, conspiracy to defraud, failure to respond to a subpoena, commingling of monies, grand larceny, and obstruction of justice.1 See ECF No. 1, Complaint (\"Compl.\") at 8-14.2 As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, Defendant improperly released $700,000 from Plaintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a502d9-803f-4adb-b72c-71287b7aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10656657-10656657","title":"CourtListener opinion 10656657","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: intiff alleges that in 2011, Defendant improperly released $700,000 from Plaintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to Plaintiff. See id. at 5- 6, 10. Plaintiff claims that he was entitled to some of the money in the fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. See id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that the release of these funds violated ERISA, but he does not specify which section of the statute. See id. Many of the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint involve Plaintiff's ex-wife, Plaintiff's past attorneys, and various judges who handled related matters. See id. at 7 (alleging that \"the actions of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065765 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065765 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: prior to March 1, 2002, as adjusted by passive gains or losses after the date of separation until the date of rollover/transfer. (Emphasis added). On March 12, 2004, wife's counsel prepared, husband's counsel endorsed as \"seen,\" and the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which incorporated the language from paragraph 10(a) of the Agreement. A dispute arose as to whether wife's agreed share was 50% of husband's contributions to the retirement plan, or 50% of the contributions, plus the growth of those contributions, that is, 50% of the value of the retirement plan assets upon the date of separation. The plan adm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: unsel endorsed as \"seen,\" and the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which incorporated the language from paragraph 10(a) of the Agreement. A dispute arose as to whether wife's agreed share was 50% of husband's contributions to the retirement plan, or 50% of the contributions, plus the growth of those contributions, that is, 50% of the value of the retirement plan assets upon the date of separation. The plan administrator, at the urgings of the respective parties, adopted both interpretations at different times. Accordingly, husband filed a motion for entry of a decree \"setting forth the proper"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ccordingly, complied with Rule 1:4(d). As to wife's second motion, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). That section gives jurisdiction for a trial court to \"[m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.\" Wife contends that the trial court's interpretation of the Agreement altered the contract between the parties, constituting an overreaching of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). In support, wife cites Ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"758661e1-b4a5-4d67-b3f9-d80c149ba2f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065765-1065765","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065765","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: D. Tobin (wife) maintains the trial court (1) failed to address two procedural motions; (2) erred on January 28, 2005, in concluding that an issue was mature for decision without an evidentiary hearing; (3) erred in determining that language in a qualified domestic relations order, incorporating a property settlement agreement, was not ambiguous; and (4) erred in interpreting that language. We find no error and affirm. I. Facts Wife and Richard J. Tobin (husband) were divorced by final decree entered December 19, 2003. The parties had separated on April 6, 2002. The decree incorporated a property settlement agreement (the Ag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065830 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065830 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to half of all benefits and ordered the husband to pay all arrearages. The trial court did not hold the husband in contempt but amended the original amended final decree of July 10, 1997, nunc pro tunc, to order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: B. Phillips; Phillips & Swanson, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33fb5611-46cf-41bb-a54e-5d3b980e6f5d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065830-1065830","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065849 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065849 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ount. That money enabled the parties to cover living and trial-related expenses while the bulk of their accounts were frozen pending distribution. Throughout the course of the trial, both sides have agreed, and the court has encouraged, that the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) could solve the problems of federal tax liability. Neither side, however, has tendered such an order to the court so the problem remains. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the Agreement under Code § 20-107.3(I) (allowing the incorporation of an agreement between the parties into a divorce decree), it retains jurisdiction of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a separate account; 8) refusing to hear evidence on * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. wife's alleged conversion of marital property; and 9) failing to determine if money accidentally transferred into husband's retirement account instead of a corporate account should be returned. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Facts The parties married April 24, 1993 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The marriage produced no children. On July 28, 1993, the parties entered into a post-nuptial agreement (\"the Agreement\") defining what property would constitute the marital estate in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: usband's argument that wife was the beneficial purchaser of said property; 5) applying $419,585 held by husband's English solicitors to his share of the property division; 6) refusing to hear evidence on federal income taxes incurred by disbursement of his pension plan account so that such costs could be considered in the division of the marital estate; 7) failing to address husband's allegations that wife improperly transferred marital funds into a separate account; 8) refusing to hear evidence on * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. wife's alleged conversion of marita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c49cb64c-0081-496b-960c-a8c31a033cbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065849-1065849","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065849","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: money enabled the parties to cover living and trial-related expenses while the bulk of their accounts were frozen pending distribution. Throughout the course of the trial, both sides have agreed, and the court has encouraged, that the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) could solve the problems of federal tax liability. Neither side, however, has tendered such an order to the court so the problem remains. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the Agreement under Code § 20-107.3(I) (allowing the incorporation of an agreement between the parties into a divorce decree), it retains jurisdiction of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065957 Docket: of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065957 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d\") for an alleged overpayment from husband's federal thrift savings plan. Wife argues that the trial court lacked the authority to alter the distribution of funds from the account, reasoning that the federal entity charged with implementing the underlying qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") correctly applied the relevant federal regulations. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court possessed the statutory authority to enter the order so as to effectuate the original intent of the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on January 7, 1983, and they separated on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ration agreement providing, inter alia, that * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover, as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding. \"the marital share of all retirement benefits, deferred compensation, thrift plan, savings plan, 401(K) or equivalents, in Husband's name shall be equally divided by the parties by qualified domestic relations order.\" Also, according to the separation agreement, husband's attorney was given \"the primary responsibility for completion of the qualified domestic relations order.\" On August 24, 2001,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt,\" we reversed and remanded \"for entry of a QDRO consistent with the final decree.\" Id. Similarly, in the original divorce decree, husband and wife agreed to split the \"marital share\" of the TSP account. As the dissent recognizes, the marital share of a pension account is determined based on the value of the account as of the date of the parties' separation. See Code § 20-107.3(G)(1). To the extent that the QDRO sought to award post-separation earnings and losses, the QDRO \"modified the total amount to be paid\" and, therefore, substantively modified the provisions of the original divorce decree. Hastie, 29 Va."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f76ecf2-b911-465d-8d6b-e09c9efddaf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065957-1065957","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover, as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding. \"the marital share of all retirement benefits, deferred compensation, thrift plan, savings plan, 401(K) or equivalents, in Husband's name shall be equally divided by the parties by qualified domestic relations order.\" Also, according to the separation agreement, husband's attorney was given \"the primary responsibility for completion of the qualified domestic relations order.\" On August 24, 2001, the trial court issued a final decree awarding husband a div"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065966 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065966 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The trial court found after argument by counsel and a review of its notes from the divorce hearing that the language of Paragraph 7 created an \"express reservation\" that entitled wife to the entry of a supplemental decree dividing the CSRS benefits and a QDRO implementing such decree. We find no error in the trial court's interpretation of its own order and hold that the trial court properly retained jurisdiction over the issue of the equitable distribution of husband's pension. -5- B. Trial Court's Consideration of the Factors in Code § 20-107.3 Husband next argues that the trial court erred by failin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1999. In June 1999, husband filed a bill of complaint for divorce and requested equitable distribution of the marital property. At the final hearing on December 6, 2000, counsel for husband presented an exhibit which husband identified as his \"civil service retirement benefit statement.\" That document is labeled \"Your Personal Benefits Statement Based on Your Account as of January 2, 2000\" and includes husband's social security number, his birth date, his service commencement date, and lists his retirement coverage as \"1 – CSRS.\" A second document introduced at trial, a \"Thrift Savings Plan Participant Statement,\" identified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: COUNTY Thomas D. Horne, Judge Rachel L. Virk for appellant. Craig E. White (Sevila, Saunders, Huddleston & White, P.C., on brief), for appellee. In this domestic appeal David Neveln (husband) contends the trial court erred in its distribution of his pension three years after a final decree of divorce was entered because the court did not properly retain jurisdiction to address the issue. In the alternative, husband argues that the trial court erred in making an award to Elaine Neveln (wife) of half of the marital share of his pension without adequately considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.3. W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e3c3296-19bf-4611-a2c7-f48776a233cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065966-1065966","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065966","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ues that the trial court erred in making an award to Elaine Neveln (wife) of half of the marital share of his pension without adequately considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.3. We hold that the trial court retained jurisdiction to address the equitable distribution of husband's pension and the evidence in the record established that the trial court sufficiently considered the factors enumerated in Code § 20-107.3. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 ∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Wife also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as procedurally ba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63632f43-3221-4616-8149-84d9d9e9bcdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 S.W.2d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1065974 Extracted case name: REBECCA JANE LEW v. IRA EUGENE LEW. Extracted reporter citation: 732 S.W.2d 598. Docket: 12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065974 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63632f43-3221-4616-8149-84d9d9e9bcdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 S.W.2d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63632f43-3221-4616-8149-84d9d9e9bcdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 S.W.2d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: granted for a period of one year, and in the event the parties cannot reconcile within that one year, then the parties shall be granted an absolute divorce on the basis of the Marital Dissolution Agreement heretofore executed by the parties, including the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, subject to increased value; and It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: 1. That the divorce granting [Wife] and [Husband] a termination of their marriage on irreconcilable differences that was entered on September 1, 2000, is hereby withdrawn. 2. That in accordance with T.C.A. 36-4-126, all proceedings in this cause of action ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63632f43-3221-4616-8149-84d9d9e9bcdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1065974-1065974","title":"CourtListener opinion 1065974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 S.W.2d 598","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r a period of one year, and in the event the parties cannot reconcile within that one year, then the parties shall be granted an absolute divorce on the basis of the Marital Dissolution Agreement heretofore executed by the parties, including the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, subject to increased value; and It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: 1. That the divorce granting [Wife] and [Husband] a termination of their marriage on irreconcilable differences that was entered on September 1, 2000, is hereby withdrawn. 2. That in accordance with T.C.A. 36-4-126, all proceedings in this cause of action ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066005 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066005 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November 1, 1999, which incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) dated and signed that same d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Kathy Gear Owens for appellee. I. The issue here for resolution is whether the trial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November 1, 1999, which incor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: appellant. Kathy Gear Owens for appellee. I. The issue here for resolution is whether the trial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b38be600-859c-4565-beb9-fa7d70534a43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066005-1066005","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066005","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: g of the disputed language can only be interpreted to mean that . . . [wife] . . . is to receive a pro rata share of . . . [husband's] . . . annuity at the time of his retirement.\" By a QDRO entered January 20, 2005, the trial court awarded wife 50% of the marital portion of the FERS retirement as received by husband. This appeal followed. III. Initially we note that the power of a circuit court to enter equitable distribution orders involving pensions, subsequent to the finality of a divorce decree, is limited by the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). Such orders may only be entered \"to effectuate the expressed int"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10660972 Extracted reporter citation: 298 F.3d 156. Docket: consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10660972 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: \"The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension fund by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by the Wife's attorney.\" (ECF No. 30-1 at 14.) On March 7, 1995, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning a portion of Robbins's pension benefit to Sanchez. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The QDRO states that Sanchez \"shall receive fifty (50%) percent of the ‘marital benefit' which fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION FUND OF LOCAL NO. ONE, I.A.T.S.E., Plaintiff, 23-CV-124 (JPO) -v- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENNIS ROBBINS, et al., Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Trustees of the Pension Fund of Local No. One, I.A.T.S.E. (the \"Fund\") brings this interpleader action against Defendants Dennis Robbins and Mary Ellen Sanchez to resolve competi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: \"The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension fund by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by the Wife's attorney.\" (ECF No. 30-1 at 14.) On March 7, 1995, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning a portion of Robbins's pension benefit to Sanchez. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The QDRO states that Sanchez \"shall receive fifty (50%) percent of the ‘marital benefit' which fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9cb59e-15c9-443e-94aa-d0c0830b370d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10660972-10660972","title":"CourtListener opinion 10660972","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg","extracted_reporter_citation":"298 F.3d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: om Robbins's motion for summary judgment and are undisputed. Robbins and Sanchez were married in September 1982, and they were divorced in September 1992. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) Robbins holds a pension plan administered by the Fund, part of which is subject to equitable distribution as marital property. (Id.) Specifically, the settlement agreement between Robbins and Sanchez that was entered by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: \"The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066209 Extracted reporter citation: 486 U.S. 330. Docket: 1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the trial court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: umbering or disposing of any marital asset without the prior consent of both parties or leave of this Court.\" Notwithstanding the entry of the court's pendente lite decree, husband transferred marital funds in several investment accounts to his individual retirement account where the funds lost earnings because of a decrease in the applicable rate of interest. In order to arrive at an accurate valuation of the funds which had been transferred from the marital accounts to husband's separate account, the parties entered a consent order on April 21, 1997, stating that, \"[f]or the purposes of equitable distribution, the pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final decree, the court set aside the final decree on April 3, 1998, \"in order to give the parties and the [c]ourt time to resolve certain issues.\" At a hearing on Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40aef158-41ac-4397-baa6-ad50e471e2d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066209-1066209","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066234 Extracted reporter citation: 486 U.S. 330. Docket: 1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066234 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the trial court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: umbering or disposing of any marital asset without the prior consent of both parties or leave of this Court.\" Notwithstanding the entry of the court's pendente lite decree, husband transferred marital funds in several investment accounts to his individual retirement account where the funds lost earnings because of a decrease in the applicable rate of interest. In order to arrive at an accurate valuation of the funds which had been transferred from the marital accounts to husband's separate account, the parties entered a consent order on April 21, 1997, stating that, \"[f]or the purposes of equitable distribution, the pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final decree, the court set aside the final decree on April 3, 1998, \"in order to give the parties and the [c]ourt time to resolve certain issues.\" At a hearing on Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1c15d71-26e4-4234-b2fa-24b5def9e835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066234-1066234","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066234","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"486 U.S. 330","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066315 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066315 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , Judge David D. Masterman (Condo & Masterman, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Richard J. Colten (Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow, we r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a proper QDRO in accordance with the provisions of Code"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: AX COUNTY Thomas S. Kenny, Judge David D. Masterman (Condo & Masterman, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Richard J. Colten (Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a81e6dd8-30e5-4abc-ba63-999f104f2507","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066315-1066315","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066315","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e marital share of husband's military retirement pension. The language of the divorce decree provided the following: [Wife] be and she hereby is awarded and allocated forty percent (40%) of the marital portion of the [husband's] retirement pension, said marital portion being sixty point one percent (60.1%) of the total pension, payable monthly as received, to- wit, an award to the [wife] of One Hundred Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-six Dollars and Forty cents ($102,496.40), payable in the amount of $575.04 each month until paid in full; . . . . (Emphasis added). The fixed sum of $102,496.40 constituted wife's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10665194 Extracted case name: IUE-CWA v. GMC. Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10665194 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Cintas Partners' Plan (\"Plan\") at any time from December 13, 2013, through April 19, 2024, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. Doc. 78-21, PageID 1540. C. Notice Results and Final Approval. Pursuant to this Court's order (Doc. 74), Plaintiffs, through their settlement administrator, Analytics, LLC, mailed notice to over 116,089 class"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ard of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expense and Named Plaintiffs Case Contribution Awards (Doc. 79) remains under advisement. I. BACKGROUND A. Nature of the Suit and Procedural Background. This case is about the alleged acts and omissions of a retirement plan's administrators. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in their management of the Cintas Partners' Plan (\"Plan\"). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Suit and Procedural Background. This case is about the alleged acts and omissions of a retirement plan's administrators. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in their management of the Cintas Partners' Plan (\"Plan\"). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80cfe3f4-612e-404e-b83f-2ac4e366c7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10665194-10665194","title":"CourtListener opinion 10665194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): for the named Plaintiffs did not impair the class's interests in this case. Plaintiffs prosecuted this case for over five years to obtain relief for the rest of the class. Class counsel have \"extensive experience in ERISA class action litigation involving defined contribution plans.\" Doc. 78-1, at ¶¶ 46–54. And Counsel have shown their adequacy through \"conduct[ing] an extensive pretrial investigation, litigat[ing] this case through an appeal, and attend[ing] a mediation session and court conferences.\" Doc. 70 (citing Doc. 78-1, at ¶¶ 46–54). The Court finds that Plaintiffs, through their counsel, have adequately protected t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c905ca78-bd14-427f-99cf-d64525852582","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066770 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066770 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c905ca78-bd14-427f-99cf-d64525852582","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c905ca78-bd14-427f-99cf-d64525852582","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of divorce is not final because it states \"and this cause shall be ended 120 days from this date to permit the parties to submit QDROS.\" The April 26, 2004 order divides the retirement and pension funds and retains jurisdiction of the case merely to enter the QDRO. It was a final and appealable order. See Rule 1:1; Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 585 139 S.E.2d 31, 35 (1964). -2- Background On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c905ca78-bd14-427f-99cf-d64525852582","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y husband, as the parties had agreed that wife would remain at home to care for the children while they were young. Wife resumed employment in 1998 and contributed financially to the marriage since that time. The marital assets included the marital home, a retirement plan, and two pension plans. The net equity in the property was $34,462.27, which the court divided equally between the parties. The court also equally divided the marital share of the retirement and pension plans. Support \"After considering all elements enumerated in Virginia Code § 20-107.1, on which evidence was introduced,\" the trial court ordered hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c905ca78-bd14-427f-99cf-d64525852582","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066770-1066770","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on to dismiss wife's appeal. Husband asserts the April 26, 2004 decree of divorce is not final because it states \"and this cause shall be ended 120 days from this date to permit the parties to submit QDROS.\" The April 26, 2004 order divides the retirement and pension funds and retains jurisdiction of the case merely to enter the QDRO. It was a final and appealable order. See Rule 1:1; Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 585 139 S.E.2d 31, 35 (1964). -2- Background On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10668307 Extracted case name: ELECTRONICALLY FILED v. HUB PARKING TECHNOLOGY USA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10668307 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: endant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was sent to HUB and HUB then had two years to evaluate the Order and determine it if was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). During the evaluation period, on July 25, 2022, Third-Party Defendant wrongfully withdrew the entire amount of his 401(k), which, according to Plaintiff, was in breach of HUB's fiduciary duty as Plan Administrator. Third-Party Defendant Murphy was subsequently Ordered in his divorce proceedings to pay Plaintiff the $121,000.00 he wrongfully wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: v. HUB PARKING TECHNOLOGY USA, INC., Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff. v. BRANDON MURPHY, Third-Party Defendant Memorandum Order on Motion to Dismiss This is an action brought under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Pending before this Court is Third-Party Defendant Brandon Murphy's Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Amended Complaint filed by HUB Parking Technology USA, Inc. (HUB), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 12(b)(6), on the basis that the equitable claims advanced by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff HUB against Third-Party Defendant Murphy, ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ndant/Third-Party Plaintiff HUB Parking Technology USA, Inc., the Plan Administrator for HUB Technology USA (Third-Party Defendant's former employer) for alleged unauthorized distribution of the proceeds of Third-Party Defendant's Retirement Savings Plan (401(k)) in the amount of $121,000.00, which was the subject of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO). Under a Marriage Settlement Agreement in the divorce proceedings in state court, Third-Party Defendant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dde91ff6-8b5e-410f-80ab-dfce0ce4114a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10668307-10668307","title":"CourtListener opinion 10668307","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Plan Administrator for HUB Technology USA (Third-Party Defendant's former employer) for alleged unauthorized distribution of the proceeds of Third-Party Defendant's Retirement Savings Plan (401(k)) in the amount of $121,000.00, which was the subject of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO). Under a Marriage Settlement Agreement in the divorce proceedings in state court, Third-Party Defendant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was sent to HUB and HUB then had two years to evaluate the Order and determine it if w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d70c8709-6b63-4683-b6ed-d1d31c5aca1e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066851 Extracted reporter citation: 265 F. Supp. 63. Docket: 0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066851 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d70c8709-6b63-4683-b6ed-d1d31c5aca1e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d70c8709-6b63-4683-b6ed-d1d31c5aca1e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: § 20-121.1 does not provide grounds for reinstatement\" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated \"any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth\" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was \"removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein.\" Because \"complete relief ha[d] not been obtained\" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d70c8709-6b63-4683-b6ed-d1d31c5aca1e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: does not provide grounds for reinstatement\" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated \"any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth\" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was \"removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein.\" Because \"complete relief ha[d] not been obtained\" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d70c8709-6b63-4683-b6ed-d1d31c5aca1e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066851-1066851","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hased by husband after the agreement had been executed with funds from his separately held account was husband's separate property. The parties' agreement purports to be \"a full and complete settlement of all property rights between them and their right to equitable distribution . . . .\" Accordingly, because husband purchased the apartment using his separate funds after the execution of the agreement, the apartment, too, remains his separate property. Education Costs Wife argues \"the trial court erred in interpreting the term ‘children' in paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement and in refusing to admit parol evidence to explain its"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b14adb0d-75b7-467a-b702-14b8433ea7f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066858","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066858 Extracted reporter citation: 265 F. Supp. 63. Docket: 0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066858 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b14adb0d-75b7-467a-b702-14b8433ea7f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066858","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b14adb0d-75b7-467a-b702-14b8433ea7f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066858","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: § 20-121.1 does not provide grounds for reinstatement\" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated \"any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth\" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was \"removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein.\" Because \"complete relief ha[d] not been obtained\" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b14adb0d-75b7-467a-b702-14b8433ea7f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066858","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: does not provide grounds for reinstatement\" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated \"any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth\" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was \"removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein.\" Because \"complete relief ha[d] not been obtained\" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b14adb0d-75b7-467a-b702-14b8433ea7f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066858-1066858","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066858","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 F. Supp. 63","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hased by husband after the agreement had been executed with funds from his separately held account was husband's separate property. The parties' agreement purports to be \"a full and complete settlement of all property rights between them and their right to equitable distribution . . . .\" Accordingly, because husband purchased the apartment using his separate funds after the execution of the agreement, the apartment, too, remains his separate property. Education Costs Wife argues \"the trial court erred in interpreting the term ‘children' in paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement and in refusing to admit parol evidence to explain its"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066988 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066988 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Frederick B. Lowe, Judge (Aysel Jafarace, pro se, on brief). (Jerrold G. Weinberg; Michael L. Donner, Sr.; Weinberg & Stein, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Aysel Jafarace appeals the trial judge's entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered on January 8, 2001. The trial judge \"affirmed and ratified\" the parties' \"written Separation and Property Settlement Agr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties shall divide the husband's BP Employee Savings Plan and BP Retirement Accumulation Plan. Paragraph ten of the agreement, entitled \"Retirement,\" is as follows: Wife shall receive at the time of Husband's retirement one-half the value of Husband's retirement plan as of July 31, 1989. Such benefits shall be payable to Wife monthly as received by Husband at the rate of 25 percent of the net cash benefit actually received by Husband until Wife receives her total share. Wife shall be responsible for any taxes due on her portion of the retirement. At Husband's option, Husband may pay Wife her portion of the retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orporated [it] into th[e January 8, 2001] Decree.\" In the decree, the trial judge ordered both parties \"to fully comply with the terms of the Agreement\" and reserved jurisdiction in the decree to enter orders to enforce the terms of the Agreement concerning pension and retirement assets. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The agreement provides that the parties shall divide the husband's BP Employee Savings Plan and BP Retirement Accumulation Plan. Paragraph ten of the agreement, entitled \"Retirement,\" is as follows: Wife shall receive at the time of Husband's retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcc61e34-0049-4f5c-a577-dd1e0e6af238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066988-1066988","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: y order wife objected to and appeals from is the QDRO for the Retirement Accumulation Plan. -2- date of distribution because the failure of [husband's] attorney, who drafted the agreement, to provide [wife] with normal gains and losses usually given to the Alternate Payee.\" Therefore, the only issue before this Court is whether the trial judge erred in including in the QDRO the value specified in the Agreement. See Rule 5A:18. See also Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) (\"The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.\"). DISC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1066991 Extracted case name: ALICE KAYE BEASON v. C.A. BEASON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066991 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") eventually was entered in the second divorce which awarded Wife 100% of Husband's Tier II benefits. After Husband became disabled, Wife began receiving all of his Tier II benefits which had accumulated during Husband's 31 years of employment with the railroad. Husband claims he then realized for the first time the true effect of the QDRO and filed a Tenn."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Consolidated Appeals from the Chancery Courts for Knox County No. 124417-2 Daryl Fansler, Chancellor No. 96068-2 Sharon Bell, Chancellor FILED MAY 2, 2003 No. E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These appeals involve an equitable distribution of the Tier II railroad retirement benefits of C.A. Beason (\"Husband\"). When Alice Beason (\"Wife\") and Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") eventually was entered in the secon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: J. Mikel Dixon, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Alice Kaye Beason. Brent R. Watson and Suzanne N. Price, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee C.A. Beason. OPINION Background These consolidated appeals concern the division of Husband's Tier II pension benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement Act and applicable Tennessee law. At the outset, a brief description of how the Railroad Retirement Act operates is in order. In Norton v. Norton, No. 02A01-9609-CV-00222, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 1997), appeal granted and remanded, this Court stated the following with regard to the def"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a377467-a03a-4c03-aeb1-305e7ada16d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1066991-1066991","title":"CourtListener opinion 1066991","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hen Alice Beason (\"Wife\") and Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") eventually was entered in the second divorce which awarded Wife 100% of Husband's Tier II benefits. After Husband became disabled, Wife began receiving all of his Tier II benefits which had accumulated during Husband's 31 years of employment with the railroad. Husband claims he then realized for the first time the true effect of the QDRO and filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067123 Docket: for the filing of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067123 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: TY Horace A. Revercomb, III, Judge Larry A. Pochucha (Bowen, Champlin, Carr & Rockecharlie, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. Holly James-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mes-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate property is void ab initio. We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to enter wife's proffered QDRO and that, pursuant to Rule 1:1, the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the court to enter a QDRO. However, for the reasons asserted by husband, the court found that the -2- entry of the proposed QDRO would impermissibly modify the provision of the May 10, 1999 order regarding husband's interest in wife's military retirement pension. Therefore, the court refused to enter wife's proposed QDRO. Wife appealed that decision to this Court. Rule 1:1 reads in pertinent part: \"All final judgments, orders, and decrees, irrespective of terms of court, shall remain under the control of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspended for twenty-one days after the date of ent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e043ad6-0b66-4036-93c5-6f2b49da4276","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067123-1067123","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067123","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for the filing of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: A. Revercomb, III, Judge Larry A. Pochucha (Bowen, Champlin, Carr & Rockecharlie, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. Holly James-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11cc0c77-fd44-4190-a547-98c2987a758c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899","title":"CourtListener opinion 10671899","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10671899 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10671899 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11cc0c77-fd44-4190-a547-98c2987a758c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899","title":"CourtListener opinion 10671899","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 3/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11cc0c77-fd44-4190-a547-98c2987a758c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899","title":"CourtListener opinion 10671899","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: See ECF Nos. 69, 70, 75, 83, 90, 126. Because all other Defendants have been terminated at this juncture, the Court ORDERS that this civil action is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of April 2024. 4U.S. Bank's Motion preempted a liberally construed ERISA claim from Yan's pleadings. See ECF No. 127 at 23 (\"To the extent Plaintiff intended to plead an ERISA fiduciary claim irrespective of a supposed violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(H)(i), that claim fails as a matter of law as well.\"). Yan's pleadings passingly reference \"ERISA guidelines\" and \"concealment of facts in relation to documents required by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11cc0c77-fd44-4190-a547-98c2987a758c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899","title":"CourtListener opinion 10671899","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): o the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise.\" See Delta Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co., 855 F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir. 1988). Rather, he merely asserts that U.S. Bank acted improperly by providing certain information as his 401(k) administrator in the underlying divorce proceeding. See ECF No. 60 at 24. Yan says he was never informed of a court order for U.S. Bank to divulge this information, a fact which he contends supports RICO liability for U.S. Bank. See id. at 26. But a release of spousal support funds is not a RICO violation. Indeed, time and again the Fifth Circuit has a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11cc0c77-fd44-4190-a547-98c2987a758c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10671899-10671899","title":"CourtListener opinion 10671899","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":13,"strict_qdro_relevance":3,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ant plan\" and \"may be a ‘spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant.'\" Miletello v. R M R Mechs., Inc., 921 F.3d 493, 495 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K)). As U.S. Bank's Motion notes, Yan was not identified as an alternate payee under the family court's orders. See ECF No. 127 at 23. Nor do the pleadings set forth any other facts that would suggest U.S. Bank violated a duty to Yan or otherwise failed to comply with applicable laws.4 Because the pleadings contain no facts that suggest U.S. Bank improperly distributed funds or otherwise deviated from its fiduciary obligations, Y"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa49923-ba59-4fb3-b078-e83e6e2f0a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067269 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067269 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa49923-ba59-4fb3-b078-e83e6e2f0a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa49923-ba59-4fb3-b078-e83e6e2f0a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: F. Wilson, pro se. No brief or argument for appellee. Husband, John F. Wilson, and wife, Georgia Anne Wilson, were divorced by final decree entered in March 1991. Husband appeals the trial court's decision to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) amending the final decree of divorce. He appeals a separate order requiring him to pay past due child support and argues that he should be granted restitution for amounts he overpaid. Husband further contends that the trial court erred (1) in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear wife's petition for an award of attorney's fees incurred on a previo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa49923-ba59-4fb3-b078-e83e6e2f0a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: gh 1994. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. I. ENTRY OF QDRO The final decree of divorce entered in March 1991 provided, in part: [Husband] will pay thirty percent (30%) of the marital share of his Federal Reserve pension each month if, as and when he begins receiving the pension. Marital share is defined as that portion of the total interest, the right to which was earned during the marriage and before the last separation and is represented by the fraction having a numerator of 16 (representing the years during the marriage which [husband's] service was credited tow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa49923-ba59-4fb3-b078-e83e6e2f0a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067269-1067269","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and a denominator (T), presently unascertained, to reflect the total number of years to be credited towards [husband's] retirement. The complete formula is .30 x 16/T x pension. After the divorce, husband resigned from the Federal Reserve. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) outlined in the final decree did not qualify as a QDRO under federal law and, as such, did not effectuate the terms of the final decree with respect to husband's pension. Accordingly, in December 1992, the trial court entered an order which provided, in part: [T]he pension benefits awarded to [wife] in the Final Decree are her property in which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067283 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067283 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: als from a final decree granting a divorce to Dawn D. Webb (wife). He contends the trial court erred when it imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necess"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to the disposition of this appeal. BACKGROUND Under familiar principles, we view"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ourt was required to use February 15, 2001, the date the trial court determined to be the date of the parties' separation, as the valuation date of the marital share of his retirement plan. Code § 20-107.3(G) defines a marital share of a retirement plan or pension as that amount accrued from the date of marriage to the date of separation. 1 See Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 86, 448 S.E.2d 666, 672 (1994) (valuation of pension funds controlled by Code § 20-107.3(G)); Mann v. Mann, 22 Va. App. 459, 464, 470 S.E.2d 605, 607 1 In addition to the monetary award made pursuant to rights and interests of the par"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78a6cd8f-bde4-4a33-b7a7-9e6ee0e73db8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067283-1067283","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: final decree granting a divorce to Dawn D. Webb (wife). He contends the trial court erred when it imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necess"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10675548 Extracted reporter citation: 920 F.3d 278. Docket: Entry No. 20-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10675548 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: effective unless in writing and received by the Participant's Employer, and in no event shall it be effective as of any date prior to such receipt. The former Spouse of a Participant shall be treated as a surviving Spouse to the extent provided under a qualified domestic relations order as described in Section 414(p) of the Code. (Docket Entry No. 19-1, at 38). Charlene Taylor was not married when she died. Charlene Taylor and Jerome Taylor were long divorced, and she did not remarry. Transocean has not provided evidence of a qualified domestic relations order that allows Jerome Taylor to be treated as Charlene Taylor's surviving"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rry. Transocean has not provided evidence of a qualified domestic relations order that allows Jerome Taylor to be treated as Charlene Taylor's surviving spouse. Indeed, the divorce decree divested Jerome Taylor of any right to Charlene Taylor's \"individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and other variable annuity life insurance benefits.\" (Docket Entry No. 20-1, at 3). The only basis for treating Jerome Taylor as a beneficiary of the plan is Charlene Taylor's beneficiary designation form. Charlene Taylor filled out the beneficiary designation form while she was still married to Jerome Taylor."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ignation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce.\" Id. at 143. In that case, David A. Egelhoff had designated his wife, Donna Rae Egelhoff, as a beneficiary of his work-sponsored life insurance policy and pension plan. David and Donna Egelhoff later divorced. Two months after that, David died. David had not modified his life insurance policy after the divorce, so the life insurance proceeds were paid to Donna. Id. at 144. David's children sued Donna, arguing that they were entitled to recover the life insurance proceeds, \"because the Washington statute disquali"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ecb411-e5c6-4dda-b542-34cf8236123a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10675548-10675548","title":"CourtListener opinion 10675548","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 20-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 F.3d 278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: funds, asserting that Transocean had correctly paid the benefits to the estate and later erroneously paid the same benefits to Jerome Taylor. (Docket Entry No. 20-1, at 120). Transocean filed this lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), seeking \"an equitable lien on specifically identifiable funds in the amount of $137,902.35 within [the estate's] possession.\" (Docket Entry No. 1, at 5). Transocean and Thure (on behalf of the estate) have filed cross motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entries No. 19, 20). Based on the motions, the responses, the parties' arguments, and the appli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e54dd3a8-4b50-43c5-8fbf-64fc6c638673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067569","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067569 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067569 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e54dd3a8-4b50-43c5-8fbf-64fc6c638673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067569","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e54dd3a8-4b50-43c5-8fbf-64fc6c638673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067569","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Court in its Order of March 25, 2003? II. Did the Trial court err in finding the Husband [in] contempt of court for not paying the lump sum payment to the Wife [Margaret A. Goodwin] ordered to be paid by the Court Order dated March 25, 2003, because the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QUADRO) required by said Order was not entered by the Court on or before June 20, 2003, or June 27, 2003? * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e54dd3a8-4b50-43c5-8fbf-64fc6c638673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067569","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: entered its own written statement. It reads as follows: The Court, on June 20, 2003, entered an interim Order finding the Defendant, JAMES LEE MARTIN, in contempt of court for failing to pay to the Complainant a lump sum payment of $335,000 representing pension proceeds. In its interim Order, the 1 We deny appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. -2- Court directed that the matter be further heard on June 27, 2003, permitting the Defendant to appear and attempt to purge the contempt or provide reason why the money had not been paid. Issues of post-judgment interest and attorneys fees were also reserved fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e54dd3a8-4b50-43c5-8fbf-64fc6c638673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067569-1067569","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067569","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntempt of court. On appeal, husband presents two questions: I. Did the Trial court err in ruling on June 20 and June 27, 2003, that the Court Order of March 25, 2003 did not require the lump sum payment provided therein to be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QUADRO) which was ordered to be prepared for submission and approval by the Court in its Order of March 25, 2003? II. Did the Trial court err in finding the Husband [in] contempt of court for not paying the lump sum payment to the Wife [Margaret A. Goodwin] ordered to be paid by the Court Order dated March 25, 2003, because the Qualified Domestic Re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ba41bf-2fd2-45a6-83b2-7fcfebfac40f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067580 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067580 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ba41bf-2fd2-45a6-83b2-7fcfebfac40f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ba41bf-2fd2-45a6-83b2-7fcfebfac40f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ba41bf-2fd2-45a6-83b2-7fcfebfac40f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ba41bf-2fd2-45a6-83b2-7fcfebfac40f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067580-1067580","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hout jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a decree of the trial court entered July 26, 1993, which reserved equitable distribution for subsequent adjudication. Thereafter, on July 28, 1994, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a consent order dated August 31, 1994. Mr. Fahey owned three Keogh accounts, valued by the agreement at $214,000, and the terms of the agreement required him to \\promptly arrange to transfer to [Mrs."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"afa1333a-3542-4726-bb1b-4f6693265c1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067582","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067582 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067582 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"afa1333a-3542-4726-bb1b-4f6693265c1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067582","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"afa1333a-3542-4726-bb1b-4f6693265c1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067582","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"afa1333a-3542-4726-bb1b-4f6693265c1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067582","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"afa1333a-3542-4726-bb1b-4f6693265c1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067582-1067582","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067582","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hout jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a decree of the trial court entered July 26, 1993, which reserved equitable distribution for subsequent adjudication. Thereafter, on July 28, 1994, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a consent order dated August 31, 1994. Mr. Fahey owned three Keogh accounts, valued by the agreement at $214,000, and the terms of the agreement required him to \\promptly arrange to transfer to [Mrs."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90ab9ca-62c2-457e-beca-42609f956f28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 F.3d 436","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10676175 Extracted reporter citation: 283 F.3d 436. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10676175 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90ab9ca-62c2-457e-beca-42609f956f28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 F.3d 436","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90ab9ca-62c2-457e-beca-42609f956f28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 F.3d 436","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ded term life policy. This obligation was to continue for as long as Mr. Robles was ordered to pay child support under the Decree. At the time of his death, Mr. Robles was still obligated to continue paying child support to Ms. Bell. 6. The Decree was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). Specifically, a. The Decree adequately identified the names of the parties to the decree and their mailing addresses by providing addresses of the parties' counsel. b. The Decree identified the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid to Ms. Bell by the plan as it states that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90ab9ca-62c2-457e-beca-42609f956f28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 F.3d 436","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: re properly characterized as a finding of fact is adopted as such, and any finding of fact more properly characterized as a conclusion of law is adopted as such. 1. This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. and is brought by Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\") as an interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. John Robles was married to Ms. Bell. In 2012 Mr. Robles and Ms. Bell executed a mediated divorce settlement agreement and a Texas state court issued a Final"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90ab9ca-62c2-457e-beca-42609f956f28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676175-10676175","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 F.3d 436","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ife policy. This obligation was to continue for as long as Mr. Robles was ordered to pay child support under the Decree. At the time of his death, Mr. Robles was still obligated to continue paying child support to Ms. Bell. 6. The Decree was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). Specifically, a. The Decree adequately identified the names of the parties to the decree and their mailing addresses by providing addresses of the parties' counsel. b. The Decree identified the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid to Ms. Bell by the plan as it states that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95aa281f-cfe9-4f21-a657-93cb24a36608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. MetLife again","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 F.2d 866","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10676650 Extracted reporter citation: 925 F.2d 866. Docket: 1-1. MetLife again. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10676650 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95aa281f-cfe9-4f21-a657-93cb24a36608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. MetLife again","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 F.2d 866","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95aa281f-cfe9-4f21-a657-93cb24a36608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. MetLife again","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 F.2d 866","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: etition. ECF No. 6. She later moved for leave to file this Petition. ECF No. 8. MetLife opposed the Motion for Leave. ECF No. 12. On April 14, 2023, in the same Probate case, McAtamney filed a Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment and Original Petition for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. No. 4:23-cv- 01447, ECF No. 1-1. MetLife again filed a Notice of Removal. No. 4:23-cv-01447, ECF No. 1. MetLife subsequently filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions on April 27, 2023. On April 20, 2023, Graves filed a Motion to Remand. ECF No. 7. On May 1, 2023, McAtamney filed a Motion to Remand. No. 4:23"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95aa281f-cfe9-4f21-a657-93cb24a36608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. MetLife again","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 F.2d 866","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e because \"when the federal statute completely pre-empts the state-law cause of action, a claim which comes within the scope of that cause of action, even if pleaded in terms of state law, is in reality based on federal law.\" Id. at 207-08 (cleaned up). \"ERISA is one of these statutes\" that can completely displace a state-law cause of action. Id. at 208. ERISA aims \"to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans,\" and thus \"includes expansive pre-emption provisions . . . , which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern.\" Id. (clean"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95aa281f-cfe9-4f21-a657-93cb24a36608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10676650-10676650","title":"CourtListener opinion 10676650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-1. MetLife again","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 F.2d 866","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: CF No. 6. She later moved for leave to file this Petition. ECF No. 8. MetLife opposed the Motion for Leave. ECF No. 12. On April 14, 2023, in the same Probate case, McAtamney filed a Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment and Original Petition for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. No. 4:23-cv- 01447, ECF No. 1-1. MetLife again filed a Notice of Removal. No. 4:23-cv-01447, ECF No. 1. MetLife subsequently filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions on April 27, 2023. On April 20, 2023, Graves filed a Motion to Remand. ECF No. 7. On May 1, 2023, McAtamney filed a Motion to Remand. No. 4:23"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb47009c-6b17-4e87-92c7-2f6fd24922ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067700","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067700 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067700 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb47009c-6b17-4e87-92c7-2f6fd24922ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067700","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb47009c-6b17-4e87-92c7-2f6fd24922ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067700","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Markle, Isaacs, & Levy, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. (Mark B. Sandground, Sr.; Lutisha E. Brown; Sandground West & New, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Gwen Mae Smith appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She presents these two questions on appeal: 1. Does the June 6, 2003 [circuit court] judgment contravene the expressed intent of both parties to divide the Government Retirement annuity that the Appellee is entitled to receive by 50%? 2. Does the Circuit Court of Fairfax County have the authority to modify a Qualified Domestic Relations Orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb47009c-6b17-4e87-92c7-2f6fd24922ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067700-1067700","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067700","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: saacs, & Levy, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. (Mark B. Sandground, Sr.; Lutisha E. Brown; Sandground West & New, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Gwen Mae Smith appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She presents these two questions on appeal: 1. Does the June 6, 2003 [circuit court] judgment contravene the expressed intent of both parties to divide the Government Retirement annuity that the Appellee is entitled to receive by 50%? 2. Does the Circuit Court of Fairfax County have the authority to modify a Qualified Domestic Relations Orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10677062 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: Entry No. 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10677062 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: id not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that \"a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable.\" Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 13, 2023 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION § TAWANDA A. JACKSON, § § Plaintiff, § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-3023 § CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND § SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, § et al., § § Defendants. § FINAL JUDGMENT Tawanda Jackson sued the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and the Estate of Van LaPeal Jackson. (Docket Entry No. 1). Tawanda Jackson and Van LaPeal Jackson divorced in September 5, 1989. In July 2023, Tawanda Jackson sued the Fund and the Estate in state court, assert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to dismiss, and Jackson did not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that \"a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable.\" Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cd309dd-4113-474b-bbc1-1272dd6b6fb2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10677062-10677062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10677062","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: n did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that \"a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable.\" Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 657, 669 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (collecting cases); see Guzman v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 99-CV-582, 2000 WL 1898846, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2000) (‘rights to survivor's benefits are fixed as the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10679660 Extracted reporter citation: 281 F.3d 158. Docket: and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10679660 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dered Defendant's counsel to prepare a final divorce decree, circulate it \"for approval as to form,\" then submit it for the judge's signature. Id. at 64. The State Court further stated that the divorce would \"be effective this date for the purposes of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order].\" Id. at 60. Plaintiff has attached an unsigned draft of the proposed \"Final Decree of Divorce\" to his Complaint, but has not indicated whether a final divorce decree was entered. Defendant contends that the divorce proceedings are ongoing. Dkt. 5 at 10-11. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant; Defe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: entered into a \"Rule 11 Agreement\" dividing their community property and declaring that the marriage \"will be dissolved on the ground of insupportability.\" Dkt. 1-1 at 13. The parties failed to come to an agreement as to how their marital residence and two retirement plans should be divided. Dkt. 13-1 at 9-10. Accordingly, on August 5, 2020, after a hearing, the State Court ruled from the bench that Defendant's retirement account was community property and ordered that Defendant could sell the marital residence. Id. at 53-54. The State Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $2,500 in attorney's fees due to his re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: endant's counsel to prepare a final divorce decree, circulate it \"for approval as to form,\" then submit it for the judge's signature. Id. at 64. The State Court further stated that the divorce would \"be effective this date for the purposes of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order].\" Id. at 60. Plaintiff has attached an unsigned draft of the proposed \"Final Decree of Divorce\" to his Complaint, but has not indicated whether a final divorce decree was entered. Defendant contends that the divorce proceedings are ongoing. Dkt. 5 at 10-11. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant; Defe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"660afbd9-9ebb-470a-8cd7-99298da7c0ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10679660-10679660","title":"CourtListener opinion 10679660","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye","extracted_reporter_citation":"281 F.3d 158","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ms (\"Defendant\") filed a petition for divorce from Blayne D. Williams, Sr. (\"Plaintiff\") in the 353rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas (\"State Court\"). Dkt. 1 at ¶ 8. The parties subsequently entered into a \"Rule 11 Agreement\" dividing their community property and declaring that the marriage \"will be dissolved on the ground of insupportability.\" Dkt. 1-1 at 13. The parties failed to come to an agreement as to how their marital residence and two retirement plans should be divided. Dkt. 13-1 at 9-10. Accordingly, on August 5, 2020, after a hearing, the State Court ruled from the bench that Defendant's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1067998 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067998 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pension; (4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. specific payment of the monetary award to wife; (7) in ordering interest to accrue on the amount of the monetary award if not timely paid; (8) in reserving wife's right to seek spousal support for a specified period; and (9) in barring husband's transfer, dispo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: chanan (wife) a divorce on the basis of constructive desertion; (2) in failing to explain the factors upon which it based equitable distribution of the marital property; (3) in refusing to assign a present value to wife's Virginia Retirement System (VRS) pension; (4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. specific payment of the monetary award to wife; (7) in ordering interest to accrue on the amount of the monetary award if not timely paid; (8) in reserving wife's right to seek spousal support for a specified period; and (9) in barring husband's transfer, dispo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7c4d34-55b6-4399-ada2-238b277aadc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1067998-1067998","title":"CourtListener opinion 1067998","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: answer and cross-bill. She denied any intentional assault on husband other than in her own attempts to defend herself against his abuse. In her cross-bill, wife requested a divorce a mensa et thoro pursuant to Code § 20-91(6). She sought spousal support, equitable distribution of the marital property, court costs and attorney's fees. - 2 - Husband denied wife's allegations and moved to dismiss the cross-bill. Following extensive evidentiary hearings, the trial court found that wife proved cruelty by husband and ordered the marriage dissolved on that basis. The trial court distributed the marital property in accordance w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10680823 Extracted reporter citation: 703 F.2d 170. Docket: entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10680823 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final review of the settlement; approved"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ore has authority to issue this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' motion be granted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by: (1) selecting and retaining imprudent investments in the Plan; (2) causing the Plan to pay unreasonable investment management fees; and ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a861d4c-3ba0-4539-97e2-6ba0c7404eaa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680823-10680823","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680823","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: he following Settlement Class for settlement purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final revi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10680862 Extracted reporter citation: 703 F.2d 170. Docket: entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10680862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final review of the settlement; approved"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rsigned therefore has authority to issue this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' motion be granted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by: (1) selecting and retaining imprudent investments in the Plan; (2) causing the Plan to pay unreasonable investment management fees; and ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e4179a-81a0-4188-997c-41b544546150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10680862-10680862","title":"CourtListener opinion 10680862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"703 F.2d 170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e following Settlement Class for settlement purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final revi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1068276 Extracted case name: DEBORAH BOWERS SMITH v. RILEY DEAN SMITH A. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 730. Docket: W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068276 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: brooks & Gray, P.A.... 5. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Discretionary Costs is granted in the amount of $665.95 for court reporter fees. Defendant shall pay as alimony in solido said sum to Plaintiff's attorney of record, Middlebrooks & Gray, P.A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was entered on February 19, 2002. Mr. Smith filed Notice of Appeal on February 21, 2002. Pending appeal and pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P 62.03, Mr. Smith filed a Motion and Memorandum of Law to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations Order on March 13, 2002. The Motion to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations was heard on April 4, 2002. The M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: is matter as the only sanction that's brought against Riley Dean Smith * * * IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: * * * 3. That Husband shall receive the real property located at 168 Pleasant Hill Road, Humbolt, Gibson County, Tennessee...one-half (½) of Jones Retirement Account ($144,407.36); one-half (½) of Phantom Stock ($109,158.50)... 4. That Wife shall be awarded...one-half (½) of Jones Retirement Account ($144,407.36); one-half (½) of Phantom Stock ($109,158.50)...2000 Dodge automobile... * * * 10. That Husband shall pay to Wife as alimony in futuro the sum of $3,000 per month, beginning September 1, 2001, and the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: riate, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including: (A) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (B) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (C)The duration of the marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df20227-eba9-4789-932c-86df8a4efe5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068276-1068276","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Gray, P.A.... 5. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Discretionary Costs is granted in the amount of $665.95 for court reporter fees. Defendant shall pay as alimony in solido said sum to Plaintiff's attorney of record, Middlebrooks & Gray, P.A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was entered on February 19, 2002. Mr. Smith filed Notice of Appeal on February 21, 2002. Pending appeal and pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P 62.03, Mr. Smith filed a Motion and Memorandum of Law to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations Order on March 13, 2002. The Motion to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations was heard on April 4, 2002. The M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36a88083-6353-4d94-b5ed-300ba42d9db5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1068685 Extracted case name: FLOYD MICHAEL WOODY v. JOY DARLENE WOODY. Docket: E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068685 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36a88083-6353-4d94-b5ed-300ba42d9db5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36a88083-6353-4d94-b5ed-300ba42d9db5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: equally divide all stock in Mr. Woody's Roadway Services, Incorporated, Stock Retirement Income Plan, as of April 20, 1993. The total number of shares to be divided is 3,168. Each party will receive 1,584 shares. These shares will be distributed as per the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which will issue from this Court and be fully adopted as if fully set forth herein. Thereafter, in accord with the above provision, the Trial Court entered a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter \"QDRO\") which orders distribution to Ms. Woody of her designated share of the stock in the above referenced stock retirement income plan, which the QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36a88083-6353-4d94-b5ed-300ba42d9db5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Chancellor FILED OCTOBER 29, 2002 No. E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery Court of Hamblen County the Appellant, Floyd Michael Woody contends that the Trial Court erred in amending a final judgment for divorce to include one half of his pension fund as part of the marital property to be awarded the Appellee, Joy Darlene Woody. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed as modified. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified; Cause Remanded HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS and CHARLES D. SUSA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36a88083-6353-4d94-b5ed-300ba42d9db5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068685-1068685","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vide all stock in Mr. Woody's Roadway Services, Incorporated, Stock Retirement Income Plan, as of April 20, 1993. The total number of shares to be divided is 3,168. Each party will receive 1,584 shares. These shares will be distributed as per the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which will issue from this Court and be fully adopted as if fully set forth herein. Thereafter, in accord with the above provision, the Trial Court entered a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter \"QDRO\") which orders distribution to Ms. Woody of her designated share of the stock in the above referenced stock retirement income plan, which the QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1068819 Extracted case name: TERRY B. HARDIN v. TERESA DIANE HARDIN. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068819 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r. Hardin commenced a monthly retirement benefit from the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan on June 1, 1999. The monthly benefit is currently $831.11.\" The memo continues that if a benefit from the pension plan is required for the alternate payee, then a QDRO is required. The attachment regarding alternate payee benefits sets forth the requirements for such a QDRO. -2- We conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of th Trial Court. The documentation from the Ford Motor Company clearly indicates that the husband is receiving benefits under a retirement plan provided by his employer. Ther"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t Cantrell, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. C. Ronald Blanton and Joseph Y. Longmire, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for Appellee. OPINION In this divorce action, the Trial Court determined that the monthly payments received by the husband from the Ford Retirement Plan was a marital asset and declared the wife to have a 50% interest in the same and awarded her one-half of a lump sum payment already received by the husband in the amount of $6,000.00. The husband has appealed. The parties stipulated to a divorce pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4-129. The husband testified that he applied to Ford Company for disability be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: had health problems, including Hepatitis C, and was unable to work, and she filed an exhibit consisting of documentation provided to her attorney via a subpoena to the Ford Motor Company. The Trial Judge determined the Ford Retirement Plan was a retirement/pension plan and a marital asset. If the Trial Court is correct in its characterization of the monthly payment, then the payment constitutes marital property, subject to equitable division. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4- 121(b)(1)(B), Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823 (Tenn. 1996). (C.f., Gragg v. Gragg, 12 S.W.3d 412 (Tenn. 2000) (holding that true disability payments replac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88a40c97-95ec-403d-99e1-7fdd38f3617a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1068819-1068819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1068819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: checked \"disability\". The information subpoenaed from Ford Motor Company and filed in evidence, consists of a cover letter to the attorney, a memo on Ford Motor Company letterhead regarding benefits information on husband, and attachment which is entitled, \"Alternate Payee's Ford-UAW Pension Benefits\". The memo regarding husband's benefits addresses three categories - health care, savings plans, and pension plans. Under the Pension Plans heading, the memo states \"In response to your request for Pension data, please be advised that Mr. Hardin commenced a monthly retirement benefit from the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Pla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10688243 Extracted reporter citation: 394 F.3d 213. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10688243 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the term \"spouse\" in the Plan includes or excludes a bigamous spouse.4 The parties also agree that Virginia does not recognize 3 The Plan's definition of \"spouse\" concerns a circumstance in which a plan participant divorces his or her spouse pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. See Plan at 55. Because this case does not involve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the Plan's definition of \"spouse\" is not helpful in resolving the issues at hand. 4 Federal courts in ERISA cases have consistently applied state law to determine whether a bigamous spouse is entitled to plan benefits. See, e.g., Crosby v. Crosby, 986 F.2d 79, 81–8"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: uirement . . . [with] the periods vary[ing] among the States and rang[ing] from six weeks to two years.\"). 7 In each of the four cases, the evidence offered to invalidate the allegedly bigamous marriage was clearly insufficient. First, in Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund v. Pack, No. 2:19-cv-10628, 2020 WL 2526091, at *6 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020), the allegedly bigamous marriage was not invalidated because the only evidence adduced to invalidate the later- in-time marriage was the earlier-in-time spouse's deposition testimony that \"he was still married to me.\" Second, in Teamsters Local 639 Empr' Pension Tr. v. Johns"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: INION Jimmy Ghadban (\"Decedent\") died on February 11, 2019 without designating a beneficiary to receive the funds in a 401(k) Plan he maintained with his employer, SYG Associates, Inc. (\"SYG\"), pursuant to the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. Thereafter, Decedent's third wife, Plaintiff Eliza Bonner (\"Plaintiff\") claimed that she was Decedent's surviving \"spouse\" and hence entitled to the funds in Decedent's 401(k) Plan as the default beneficiary. The 401(k) Plan Administrators, Mary Kathryn Hamill, Susan Webb, and SYG (collectively, \"Defendants\"), disagreed wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8554f7d2-ad5c-4049-a12f-cd60073cc580","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10688243-10688243","title":"CourtListener opinion 10688243","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 F.3d 213","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): A BONNER, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-1514 ) SYG ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Jimmy Ghadban (\"Decedent\") died on February 11, 2019 without designating a beneficiary to receive the funds in a 401(k) Plan he maintained with his employer, SYG Associates, Inc. (\"SYG\"), pursuant to the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. Thereafter, Decedent's third wife, Plaintiff Eliza Bonner (\"Plaintiff\") claimed that she was Decedent's surviving \"spouse\" and hence entitled to the funds in Decedent's 401(k) Plan as the de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c38a56-3911-48fd-8996-92214f62ca28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1069501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1069501 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1069501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c38a56-3911-48fd-8996-92214f62ca28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1069501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c38a56-3911-48fd-8996-92214f62ca28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1069501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OUNTY L. A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c38a56-3911-48fd-8996-92214f62ca28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1069501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t to Code § 17.1-400(D). ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Background On March 9, 1998, the parties entered into an agreement which contained a specified distribution to the parties of husband's retirement, pension, profit sharing, deferred compensation assets, and IRA account. In part, Section F of the agreement states that \\[t]he parties agree to the following distribution of such assets"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c38a56-3911-48fd-8996-92214f62ca28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1069501-1069501","title":"CourtListener opinion 1069501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10701570 Extracted case name: ORDER REGARDING v. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO. Extracted reporter citation: 554 U.S. 105. Docket: generated by the 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10701570 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . (See AR at 8, 14 (\"Teresa Richardson is the 2 alternate payee for Participant Warren Richardson under [IBEW] Pacific Coast Pension 3 Fund.\"), 441.)2 4 Ms. Richardson and non-party Warren Richardson divorced in October 2001. (Id. 5 at 14.) Pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), Ms. Richardson 6 was awarded 100% of the pension benefits credited to Mr. Richardson, as a participant in 7 the Plan from November 1974 to March 1996. (Id.) In 2006, Ms. Richardson applied for 8 her pension and received her first check in May 2006, in the amount of $2,071.50. (Id.) 9 The Plan provides an actuarial reduction to a participant's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: gust 22, 2016, 15 audit of QDROs. (Id. at 37.) Ms. Richardson's QDRO awards her a 100% share of the 16 community accrual. (Id. at 38.) At the time Ms. Richardson filed her application for 17 pension benefits, the Plan was providing heavily subsidized early retirement benefits to 18 Plan Participants, which were funded solely through employer contributions. (Id. at 443.) 19 Part 4(a) of Ms. Richardson's QDRO states that the benefits are to be calculated in the 20 form of an annuity under the Joint and Survivor provisions of the Plan or, if applicable, 21 under Internal Revenue Code (\"IRC\") 414(p)(4)(A)(ii) based upon the ag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 TERESA RICHARDSON, CASE NO. C19-0772JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING v. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 12 DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION 13 PARTIES' TRIAL BRIEFS FUND, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Teresa Richardson brings an action under the Employee Retirement 17 Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., against Defendant 18 IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund (\"IBEW\" or \"the Plan\") related to IBEW's reduction 19 in her monthly pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69184b6c-6cc1-48b8-996d-db7fe1fe73f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10701570-10701570","title":"CourtListener opinion 10701570","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"generated by the 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 U.S. 105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION 13 PARTIES' TRIAL BRIEFS FUND, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Teresa Richardson brings an action under the Employee Retirement 17 Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., against Defendant 18 IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund (\"IBEW\" or \"the Plan\") related to IBEW's reduction 19 in her monthly pension benefit amount and IBEW's attempt to recoup its alleged 20 overpayment to Ms. Richardson. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Essentially, Ms. 21 Richardson is appealing IBEW's decision to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10704515 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: and page numbers applied by the Court. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10704515 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Defendants\"), and John Does 1–30 breached fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries of the Plan. 6 Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: 7 (1) authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably high fees for retirement plan services (\"RPS\"); (2) failing to objectively, reasonably, and adequately review the Plan's 8 investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (3) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the 9 availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better perform"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: (\"Generac\") until May 11, 2021, and is a participant and beneficiary of the Generac Power 2 Systems, Inc. Employees 401(k) Savings Plan (the \"Plan\"). Id. at ¶¶ 12–14. Plaintiff brought 3 this action, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), maintaining 4 that Defendants Generac, the Board of Directors of Generac Power Systems, Inc. (the \"Board 5 Defendants\"), and John Does 1–30 breached fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries of the Plan. 6 Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: 7 (1) authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 DERECK CASE, individually, and as CASE NO. C21-752 RSM representative of a Class of Participants and 9 Beneficiaries of the Generac Power Systems, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' Inc. Employees 401(k) Savings Plan, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO 10 THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF Plaintiffs, WISCONSIN AND DENYING MOTION 11 TO STAY v. 12 GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern 17 District of Wisconsin. Dkt. #25. Additionally, De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f4d4bd-dfb5-4acc-8f86-e0d9e7fbe678","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10704515-10704515","title":"CourtListener opinion 10704515","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and page numbers applied by the Court","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a claim for benefits that is denied or ignored, in whole or in 14 part, you may file suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In addition, if you disagree with the Plan's decision or lack thereof 15 concerning the qualified status of a domestic relations order, you may file suit in a federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 16 • If it should happen that Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan's money, or if you 17 are discriminated against for asserting your rights, you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a 18 federal court in the Eastern District of Wiscons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1070670 Extracted case name: THOMAS R. STUBBLEFIELD v. MONIQUE RUTH STUBBLEFIELD. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 730. Docket: E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1070670 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t's determination, since this is the figure the husband himself proposed in his \"Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account\", which the Court adopted. The counsel for wife asserts that whether the government could pay the wife directly via a QDRO is outside this record. The Court's amended Memorandum Opinion provided that if a QDRO was not available, then the husband is to make the payment directly to the wife. Nothing in the record indicates that the husband objected to the language of the Final Decree which awards the wife $234.85 per month, plus 15% of any future increase in benefits. This issu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: coverage is $314.00 per month. The Court's Amended Opinion addressed the division of retirement income. Husband's pension was specifically held to be marital property, and the Court's Opinion adopted the husband's \"Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account\" and awarded 15% of husband's benefit to the wife, which equals $234.85 per month. Our review of the Trial Court's finding of fact is de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. Rule 13(d). Trial courts have wide latitude to adjust and adjudicate an equitable division of marital property, guided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d ordered husband to pay COBRA payments to insure wife until she qualifies for Medicare, which is less than two years. The average cost of this coverage is $314.00 per month. The Court's Amended Opinion addressed the division of retirement income. Husband's pension was specifically held to be marital property, and the Court's Opinion adopted the husband's \"Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account\" and awarded 15% of husband's benefit to the wife, which equals $234.85 per month. Our review of the Trial Court's finding of fact is de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence prepon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6e4d31d-7365-4121-a2dc-9a460d6891c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070670-1070670","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 730","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Fisher v. Fisher, 648 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Tenn. 1983). It is appropriate to award one spouse the cash equivalent from their share of a business or real estate retained by the other spouse, to achieve an equitable distribution of property. Loyd v. Loyd, 860 S.W.2d 409, 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Retirement benefits, including military retirement, are marital property and subject to the same consideration as other property for equitable division. They need not be mathematically -2- precise, but should reflect essential fairness in light of facts. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1070746 Extracted case name: MICHAEL DANIEL FRY v. YURIKO SHINODA FRY. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1070746 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: raph 9 of the decree provided: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service rebuffed their first effort to establish the wife's right to a portion of the Navy pension. Because the government requires a provision in the decree that sets a specific amount or provides a formula by which a specific amount can be calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: we interpret the original order, it awarded the wife one-half of the pension – but only of that portion that accrued during the marriage. The original order was in accordance with the general rule announced by the courts of this state that only the portion of retirement benefits that accrue during the marriage are marital property subject to division. See Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823 (Tenn. 1996). Therefore, the change was substantive and not just clerical. -2- Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. P., allows courts to correct final judgments for clerical mistakes (60.01) or for a host of reasons appearing in 60.02: On motion and upon suc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 99D-1613 Muriel Robinson, Judge No. M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 5, 2001 Pursuant to the wife's motion under Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. P., the trial court amended the division of the husband's Navy pension contained in an agreed order of divorce. We reverse the trial court's judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded BEN H. CANTRELL, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. CAIN , J. and JOHN A. TURNBU LL, SP . J., joined. D. Scott Parsley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4ee5b09-d066-4ba1-84fb-80a440b934de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1070746-1070746","title":"CourtListener opinion 1070746","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the decree provided: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service rebuffed their first effort to establish the wife's right to a portion of the Navy pension. Because the government requires a provision in the decree that sets a specific amount or provides a formula by which a specific amount can be calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1071373 Extracted case name: EILEEN WILSON DUNLOY v. BRIAN EDWARD DUNLOY. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1071373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: wo years of marriage. The Final Decree of Divorce incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement (\"MDA\") executed by the parties on April 28, 1994. This case involves the interpretation of the MDA concerning the distribution of certain retirement benefits and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The MDA provides as pertinent to the issue before this Court: 34. Mr. Dunloy agrees that his account balance, as of April 29, 1994, with The Savings Plan of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Vanguard Funds account #462-78- 1 M rs. Dunloy has since remarried becoming Mrs. Turowski but for convenience will be referred to as Mrs. Dunloy. 8754) sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , that a benefit would be paid to them. And usually it's based on a formula, based on years of service, based on compensation to determine the amount that they would be paid at the time of retirement or separation of employment. The parties agree that the retirement plan at issue in paragraph 35 is a defined benefit plan and is vested. Further, the defined benefit plan at issue is back loaded, which means that the later years of employment receive extra weight in the formulation of the retiree's benefit. III. Valuation of Mr. Dunloy's Defined Benefit Plan The parties were able to reach agreement regarding paragraph 34 o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ge chosen by the parties means, specifically in regard to the \"account balance\" language appearing in paragraph 35 of the MDA and how that language affects the determination of Mrs. Dunloy's percentage of Mr. Dunloy's defined contribution plan. II. Types of Pension Plans Generally, there are two types of pension plans, a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan. Mrs. Dunloy's expert, Mr. Michael Guyton, testified as to the differences between the two types of pension plans: There are basically two types of tax-qualified pension plans. The one category is called defined contribution plans and the other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"064f9a4d-6382-434f-8ae0-a66d58125ddd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1071373-1071373","title":"CourtListener opinion 1071373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): value at retirement, shall be further effectuated through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. About a year after the decree was entered, the parties entered into a QDRO with regard to the Savings Plan referred to in paragraph 34, which is a defined contribution plan, without difficulty, and the order was entered by the trial court. Problems, however, arose with regard to a QDRO for the Retirement Income Plan referenced in paragraph 35. After several years of unsuccessful negotiation, Mrs. Dunloy filed a Motion to Enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the trial court. Mr. Dunloy insisted upon a QDRO using"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1072378 Extracted case name: DANIEL ED LOWE v. FAYTELLA D. LOWE. Extracted reporter citation: 932 S.W.2d 939. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1072378 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ties' antenuptial agreement to be void \"due to the fact the Wife did not enter into the agreement knowingly and did not have proper notice of the Husband's retirement account prior to entering the antenuptial agreement.\" The trial court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order, directing the administrator of Husband's retirement plan to pay benefits to Wife equaling 50% of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage. Husband filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review Our review of this non-jury case is de novo; however, the record comes to us accompani"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: olved a childless marriage of 5 1/2 years. Daniel Ed Lowe (\"Husband\") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in declaring the parties' antenuptial agreement void and (2) in granting Faytella D. Lowe (\"Wife\") half of the increase in value of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined. John W. Cleveland, Sweetwater, Tennessee, for the appellant, Daniel Ed Lowe. Ashley"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of these benefits was $225,906.80. There is no dispute that the retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage constitute marital property. See T.C.A. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) (1996) (defining \"marital property\" to include \"the value of vested and unvested pension, vested and unvested stock option rights, retirement or other -3- fringe benefit rights relating to employment that accrued during the period of the marriage\"). As marital property, Husband's retirement benefits were subject to an equitable division, even though Wife did not directly contribute to the increase in their value. See Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d790b60d-f46d-4d9a-bb0d-e3fb301733fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1072378-1072378","title":"CourtListener opinion 1072378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"932 S.W.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nefits that accrued during the marriage. Husband argues that the judgment of divorce is not a \"qualified domestic relations order\" within the meaning of the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (1999) (\"ERISA\"), and, so the argument goes, the award is invalid. Furthermore, he argues, the trial court erred in calculating the amount to which Wife is entitled. According to the Statement of the Evidence, Husband worked for Cleveland Utilities, and participated in its retirement plan from October 1, 1965, until November 7, 1969. Husband cashed out his retirement be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7583fd9-483c-4a0c-871b-8069df979c5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178","title":"CourtListener opinion 10726178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.3d 520","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10726178 Extracted reporter citation: 708 F.3d 520. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10726178 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7583fd9-483c-4a0c-871b-8069df979c5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178","title":"CourtListener opinion 10726178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.3d 520","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7583fd9-483c-4a0c-871b-8069df979c5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10726178-10726178","title":"CourtListener opinion 10726178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"708 F.3d 520","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: itioner, his former wife, sought to hold him in contempt of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QRDO\") entered by the family court. Id. at 412. The family court declined to hold the respondent in contempt because the petitioner had not timely filed the QDRO.3 Id. The circuit court affirmed this ruling as a proper application of the doctrine of laches. Id. at 413. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which reversed the lower courts' decisions, finding an erroneous application of the doctrine of laches where neither court had made the requisite determinati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10728965 Extracted reporter citation: 588 F.3d 186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10728965 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ust and shall allow the representatives of said Trust to make the appropriate changes therein so as to indicate [Alma Parsons] as the beneficiary of any interest of [Rodger Parsons] in said Trust.\" (Compl. ¶ 10.) The November 20, 1985 decree constitutes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to Mr. Parsons' retirement benefits. In 1995, ten years after the divorce decree was entered, Mr. Parsons applied for an Early Retirement Pension under the Plan in the form of a single life annuity with sixty guaranteed payments, which the Defendant granted. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's consent to waiver before allowing Mr. Pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e. The Plaintiff alleges that, as a married participant at that time, Mr. Parsons was automatically enrolled in the 50% Husband and Wife Pension. On November 20, 1985, the Plaintiff and Mr. Parsons divorced. The divorce decree granted Mr. Parsons \"[a]ll retirement benefits to which he is presently entitled . . . as a result of past or present employment, with [Alma Parsons] to be named as the sole beneficiary and entitled to receive the aforesaid benefits in the event of the death of [Mr. Parsons].\" (Compl. ¶ 8.) The divorce decree further stated, \"a Certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall be sent to the Boilermaker-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALMA PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00132 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 11), the Defendant's Suggestions in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 12), the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Document 18), and the Defendan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c4ca64c-34a9-44ad-9d3b-3f4c1b43e39e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10728965-10728965","title":"CourtListener opinion 10728965","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"588 F.3d 186","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: smiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 20). For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be denied. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Plaintiff, Alma Parsons, brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq., alleging that the Defendant, acting as a sponsor, violated her interest in her former husband's pension plan. The Plaintiff's ex-husband, Rodger Parsons, was a participant of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Plan). Mr. Parsons became a participant in the Plan in 1966. Under Article VI of the Plan, the aut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10729266 Extracted reporter citation: 526 U.S. 541. Docket: of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10729266 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: allow the representatives of said Trust to make the appropriate changes therein so as to indicate [Alma Parsons] as the beneficiary of any interest of [Rodger Parsons] in said Trust.\" (Id.) The parties agree that the November 20, 1985 decree constitutes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to Mr. Parsons' retirement benefits. In 1995, ten years after the divorce decree was entered, Mr. Parsons applied for an Early Retirement Pension under the Plan in the form of a single life annuity with sixty guaranteed payments, which the Defendant granted. On September 19, 1995, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff, requesting her to clarif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nsion in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) for the lifetime of the participant and the participant's surviving legal spouse. On November 20, 1985, the Plaintiff and Mr. Parsons divorced. The divorce decree granted Mr. Parsons \"[a]ll retirement benefits to which he is presently entitled . . . as a result of past or present employment, with [Alma Parsons] to be named as the sole beneficiary and entitled to receive the aforesaid benefits in the event of the death of [Mr. Parsons].\" (Document 29-3 at BNF 000541.) The divorce decree further stated, \"a Certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall be sent to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALMA PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00132 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 27) and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 29), Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Document 31) and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Administrativ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"abdeddd4-0106-4e30-b1ba-6955f41bdbc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10729266-10729266","title":"CourtListener opinion 10729266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 U.S. 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: herein, the Court finds that the Defendant's motion should be denied, and that the Plaintiff's motion should be granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Plaintiff, Alma Parsons, brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq., alleging that the Defendant, acting as a sponsor, violated her interest in her former husband's pension plan. The Plaintiff's ex-husband, Rodger Parsons, was a participant of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Plan). Mr. Parsons became a vested participant in the Plan in 1976. Under Article VI of the Plan, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c202ec0b-d85c-4362-87a2-972b2e6afcc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 F.3d 198","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10730400 Extracted reporter citation: 439 F.3d 198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10730400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c202ec0b-d85c-4362-87a2-972b2e6afcc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 F.3d 198","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c202ec0b-d85c-4362-87a2-972b2e6afcc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 F.3d 198","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tiff's motions and GRANTS the Pension Board's motion. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Injunction against the Pension Board, generally alleging that it was failing to give full faith and credit to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that gave her a right to a portion of Christopher Jackson's police pension. In her Complaint, Plaintiff requested the Court enjoin the Pension Board and direct that it pay her pursuant to the terms of the QDRO. The Pension Board was served a copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2021, and its Answer was due on December 24, 2021. As no Answer or respons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c202ec0b-d85c-4362-87a2-972b2e6afcc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730400-10730400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 F.3d 198","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CAMELA JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-0570 HUNTINGTON POLICE PENSION BOARD and CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Camela Jackson's Motions for Default Judgment (ECF Nos. 7 & 9) and a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default by Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (the Pension Board). ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plainti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41ac69fa-8c08-4c0f-8b24-5b48113c8496","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"545 U.S. 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10730596 Extracted reporter citation: 545 U.S. 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10730596 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41ac69fa-8c08-4c0f-8b24-5b48113c8496","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"545 U.S. 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41ac69fa-8c08-4c0f-8b24-5b48113c8496","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"545 U.S. 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: F No. 36. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss and DENIES AS MOOT both Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. This case involves a dispute regarding the application of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to certain pension benefits earned by Defendant Christopher Jackson and disbursed by Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (the Board). Initially, Plaintiff brought this action seeking injunctive relief against the Board and asked the Court to order the Board to make payments to her in the amount she believed she was entitled to receive. After heari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41ac69fa-8c08-4c0f-8b24-5b48113c8496","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10730596-10730596","title":"CourtListener opinion 10730596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"545 U.S. 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CAMELA JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-0570 HUNTINGTON POLICE PENSION BOARD and CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant Christopher Jackson and Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (ECF Nos. 29, 31, 41, & 44) and a cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Camela Jackson. ECF No. 36. For t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10731094 Extracted reporter citation: 825 F.3d 206. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10731094 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed to exhaust her administrative remedies, a prerequisite to her seeking judicial relief. (ECF No. 5 at 8 (citing Conner v. Elkem Metals Co., 5:06-cv-00217, 2008 WL 5122197, at *3 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 5, 2008).) They also argue that Plaintiff does not have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which is required to remain an AEP Plan beneficiary following a divorce. (Id. at 8–9.) The Court believes dismissal without prejudice is the better route. Plaintiff, no doubt, jumped the gun by filing suit before exhausting her administrative remedies. But that mistake does not prevent her from now going back, exhausting her administrative rem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ement, LLC's (\"Empower\") Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons more fully explained below, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Roger Allen Riley was an AEP employee. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 9.) While there, Roger participated in two AEP-sponsored retirement plans (\"AEP Plans\").1 (Id.) He designated his then-wife Plaintiff Sherry Ray Riley (\"Plaintiff\") as the beneficiary of each AEP Plan. (Id. at 2, ¶ 11.) The couple divorced sometime in 2021, or early 2022, (see id. at 2, ¶ ¶ 4, 8), and Roger passed away \"several months\" later on April 4, 2022, (id.). Although the two divorced some time 1 The complaint does n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as. Co., 404 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir. 2005) (\"The term ‘State law' encompasses not only statutes but also common law causes of action, such as . . . claim[s] for breach of contract.\"). 3 An \"employee benefit plan,\" for ERISA purposes, includes \"an employee pension benefit plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3). \"[A]n employee pension benefit plan\" is defined as \"any plan, fund, or program which was . . . established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both,\" that \"provides retirement income to employees.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)(i). This covers the AEP Plans at issue here. 4 Plaintiff's state-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37bda2a7-ba2c-459b-af78-bcdc0c0911b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10731094-10731094","title":"CourtListener opinion 10731094","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"825 F.3d 206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: h plans, and that \"Empower is the recordkeeper . . . only for the AEP 401(k) Plan.\" (ECF No. 5 at 2 n.1.) At this juncture, however, the Court must accept Plaintiff's factual allegations as true. King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016). 2 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (Id. at 1.) Because Plaintiff's claims are preempted, they argue, her complaint fails to state a claim and should therefore be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The matter is ripe for adjudication. (ECF Nos. 5, 14, 16.) II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted tests the lega"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10732269 Extracted reporter citation: 207 F.3d 1143. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10732269 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: action concerning the proceeds of a life insurance policy administered by the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (\"Hartford Plan\"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement (\"LSA\") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The LSA provides that the decedent \"shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000\" and \"name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary.\" Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ust, among other requirements, \"clearly specif[y]\" \"each plan to which such order applies.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)(iv). We require only \"substantial compliance\" with ERISA's specificity requirements. Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) 2 23-3286 (citing Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 420 (9th Cir. 2000)). The LSA substantially complies with the specificity requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to \"spar[e] plan administrators the grief they experience\" due to \"uncertainty conce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Insurance Company (\"Hartford Plan\"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement (\"LSA\") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The LSA provides that the decedent \"shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000\" and \"name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary.\" Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Plan proceeds over the decedent's girlfriend, Valois, who is the named benefi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5bec5c97-5c65-4d5c-af4b-55f3291c59cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10732269-10732269","title":"CourtListener opinion 10732269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"207 F.3d 1143","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cerning the proceeds of a life insurance policy administered by the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (\"Hartford Plan\"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement (\"LSA\") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The LSA provides that the decedent \"shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000\" and \"name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary.\" Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"241447d9-e76e-4fc3-91df-5a5f608c4736","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073497","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1073497 Extracted case name: SESSION MONA ZAYYAT KOJA v. ABED SALAM KOJA A. Extracted reporter citation: 944 S.W.2d 379. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1073497 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"241447d9-e76e-4fc3-91df-5a5f608c4736","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073497","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"241447d9-e76e-4fc3-91df-5a5f608c4736","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073497","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ount shall all go to Dr. Koja. Mrs. Koja shall receive her personal checking account at First Tennessee Bank, account number 20-87888758. Mrs. Koja shall be awarded $50,000.00 of Dr. Koja's profit sharing plan, which shall be transferred by an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which should be prepared by her counsel. Dr. Koja shall also pay to Mrs. Koja as a further division of marital assets, a cash payment of $34,000.00. Dr. Koja shall pay to Mrs. Koja the sum of $3,000.00 per month as periodic alimony, which shall terminate upon her death or remarriage. That the Court has taken into consideration the potential cost fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"241447d9-e76e-4fc3-91df-5a5f608c4736","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073497-1073497","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073497","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all go to Dr. Koja. Mrs. Koja shall receive her personal checking account at First Tennessee Bank, account number 20-87888758. Mrs. Koja shall be awarded $50,000.00 of Dr. Koja's profit sharing plan, which shall be transferred by an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which should be prepared by her counsel. Dr. Koja shall also pay to Mrs. Koja as a further division of marital assets, a cash payment of $34,000.00. Dr. Koja shall pay to Mrs. Koja the sum of $3,000.00 per month as periodic alimony, which shall terminate upon her death or remarriage. That the Court has taken into consideration the potential cost fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1073522 Extracted case name: PHILLIPS v. THOMAS HICKMAN PHILLIPS. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 815. Docket: M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1073522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ital property. We therefore modify the trial court's ruling to reflect that, in addition to the marital property that the court awarded Husband, Husband is also awarded a total of $75,000.00 from Wife's retirement accounts. On remand, the court should enter a qualified domestic relations order assigning this amount to Husband. Rehabilitative Alimony As stated above, the trial court ordered that Husband is obligated to pay rehabilitative alimony to Wife in the amount of $600.00 per month until December of 2000. Husband argues on appeal that, given Wife's education, employment history, and current income opportunities, an award of alimony is in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sonal $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 Bank Account Old Hickory Credit $291.09 $291.09 $291.09 Union Bank Account ½ of Tax Refund $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 1992 Toyota SR5 $9,100.00 $9,100.00 $9,100.00 4-Runner Husband's $124,329.69 $124,329.69 $124,329.69 Retirement Accounts Marital Debt Allocated to Husband Debt Amount of Debt First USA Waldenbooks Visa $6,000.00 First Union MasterCard $3,000.00 Discover Card $4,528.00 -2- Value of Marital Property Awarded to Husband: $138,464.42 Amount of Marital Debt Allocated to Husband: 13,528.00 Net Amount of Marital Estate Awarded to Husband: $124,936.421 Marital Property A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ee id. at 683 (citing Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Loyd, 860 S.W.2d at 412). These factors are as follows: (A) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (B) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (C) The duration of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"816a7650-c4b9-4817-8f07-46808f0961a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1073522-1073522","title":"CourtListener opinion 1073522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 815","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rty. We therefore modify the trial court's ruling to reflect that, in addition to the marital property that the court awarded Husband, Husband is also awarded a total of $75,000.00 from Wife's retirement accounts. On remand, the court should enter a qualified domestic relations order assigning this amount to Husband. Rehabilitative Alimony As stated above, the trial court ordered that Husband is obligated to pay rehabilitative alimony to Wife in the amount of $600.00 per month until December of 2000. Husband argues on appeal that, given Wife's education, employment history, and current income opportunities, an award of alimony is in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10737117 Extracted reporter citation: 359 P.3d 667. Docket: 20230742-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10737117 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Specifically, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in the other party's retirement. ¶4 Not long after the Decree was entered, Justin was retired from the military with a disability rating of 100% and nearly twenty-one years of service credited toward retirement. At that point, Justin began receiving two types of pay relevant to this case. First, Jus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ired from the military for permanent disability under Chapter 61. Id. at 434, 438. The wife argued that \"CRDP is divisible upon divorce.\" Id. at 441 (cleaned up). ¶19 The court in Guerrero explained \"CRDP does not change the nature of [a member's] Chapter 61 retirement benefit. [His] benefits come from two sources—Chapter 61 disability retirement and VA disability payments. Neither source is divisible upon 20230742-CA 7 2024 UT App 160 Chlarson v. Chlarson divorce.\" Id. Such is the case here. Justin receives Chapter 61 disability retirement and disability compensation. Neither is divisible. ¶20 The fact that § 1414 reference"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: At the time of trial, Justin was serving full time in the military, pending a possible disability retirement. ¶3 In the divorce decree (the Decree), the district court awarded Justin and Jacqueline equal shares of the \"marital portions\" of all retirement and pension funds. Specifically, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd4507e7-4e40-48cb-855d-0ffa1fdf275b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737117-10737117","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737117","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230742-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"359 P.3d 667","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ally, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in the other party's retirement. ¶4 Not long after the Decree was entered, Justin was retired from the military with a disability rating of 100% and nearly twenty-one years of service credited toward retirement. At that point, Justin began receiving two types of pay relevant to this case. First, Jus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10737620 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10737620 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993). II. The Wife's Cross-Appeal A. Relevant Facts In the parties' divorce decree, the trial court ordered that the husband's defined contribution retirement accounts \"shall be divided by a . . . Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as necessary such that[,] based on the values on the date of division[,] [the wife] is awarded 55% and [the husband] 45% of the balances in each account.\" (Emphasis added.) The court's subsequent December 5, 2013 order, entered in response to post-divorce motions filed after the time for a mandatory appeal of the parties' divorce decree had expired, provid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: opinion is unnecessary in this case. The husband, James Drew, appeals, and the wife, Susan Drew, cross- appeals, a decision of the Circuit Court (Foley, J.) concerning the division of the husband's retirement assets, which consist of five defined contribution retirement accounts and two traditional pensions. The husband challenges the trial court's division of his traditional pensions, and the wife challenges its division of his defined contribution retirement accounts. The husband asserts that the trial court's division of his traditional pensions is erroneous because the trial court accepted apportionment orders drafted by an ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orders. We affirm. I. The Husband's Appeal A. Relevant Facts The parties divorced in April 2013, after having been married for approximately 16 years. The parties' divorce decree provided that the husband's traditional pensions, which comprise a military pension from the United States Army and a civil service pension from the Internal Revenue Service, would be divided pursuant to the Hodgins formula. See Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 716 (1985), superseded on other grounds by RSA 458:16-a, II (2004). The Hodgins formula is a default formula that applies when the nature of a retirement benefit makes it impossibl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2fee095-f0e2-4a60-8aa1-60b8d60db0ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10737620-10737620","title":"CourtListener opinion 10737620","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hat a formal written opinion is unnecessary in this case. The husband, James Drew, appeals, and the wife, Susan Drew, cross- appeals, a decision of the Circuit Court (Foley, J.) concerning the division of the husband's retirement assets, which consist of five defined contribution retirement accounts and two traditional pensions. The husband challenges the trial court's division of his traditional pensions, and the wife challenges its division of his defined contribution retirement accounts. The husband asserts that the trial court's division of his traditional pensions is erroneous because the trial court accepted apportionment orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fccc7d3-62b9-4c40-8db0-3c859fb226b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10738069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10738069 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10738069 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fccc7d3-62b9-4c40-8db0-3c859fb226b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10738069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fccc7d3-62b9-4c40-8db0-3c859fb226b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10738069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an exhibit, a letter from the Department of Education that stated that it \"does not offer federal funds to repay a portion of a loan or to repay a loan in someone else's name.\" The trial court found that the respondent \"did not cooperate with, or sign the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] documents as required in . . . Section 10 of the parties' February 10, 2011 Permanent Stipulations\" (emphasis in original). However, the stipulation does not refer to the preparation or execution of QDROs. It was the April 9, 2012 order that directed the parties to \"cooperate fully\" in the preparation and execution of the QDROs, but directed the pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fccc7d3-62b9-4c40-8db0-3c859fb226b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10738069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nds that were the subject of the QDRO and the Court's Order, despite the fact that the Court's [April 9, 2012] Order . . . was clear and unambiguous.\" The April 9 order directed the respondent to withdraw the QDRO funds \"within 10 days of the establishment of retirement accounts for him by the plan administrator and within five (5) days thereafter place these funds\" with the petitioner's counsel as escrow agent. The respondent testified, and the petitioner did not contest his testimony at the hearing, that he received the first QDRO check on December 19, 2012, and the second QDRO check on January 14, 2013, and transferred the fund"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fccc7d3-62b9-4c40-8db0-3c859fb226b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10738069-10738069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10738069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t, a letter from the Department of Education that stated that it \"does not offer federal funds to repay a portion of a loan or to repay a loan in someone else's name.\" The trial court found that the respondent \"did not cooperate with, or sign the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] documents as required in . . . Section 10 of the parties' February 10, 2011 Permanent Stipulations\" (emphasis in original). However, the stipulation does not refer to the preparation or execution of QDROs. It was the April 9, 2012 order that directed the parties to \"cooperate fully\" in the preparation and execution of the QDROs, but directed the pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10739109 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DOMINIC and BIBIAN EHIRIM. DOMINIC EHIRIM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10739109 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erroneously determined the \"start date\" of his Gillmore payments to Bibian. We find no merit to this claim. 1. Legal Principles Under Gillmore, a nonmember spouse is entitled to the value of the nonmember's community interest in a member spouse's public retirement plan when the member 3 becomes eligible for retirement—that is, the nonmember is entitled to the amount the nonmember would have collected from the plan if the member retired when the member became eligible for retirement. (Gillmore, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 426.) If the member continues to work, the member must pay the nonmember the value of the nonmember's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tiary hearing on the RFO on September 28, 2021. The parties submitted on their pleadings and declarations, and the court took the matter under submission. On October 28, 2021, the court took the matter out of submission and reappointed Richard R. Muir, the pension expert who had prepared the parties' DRO, to provide responses to two questions: \"Can the CalPERS pension plan with the State of California divide the interest of the parties into two separate accounts to reflect their respective community property interests?\" and \"If the CalPERS pension plan with the State of California can separate the parties' respe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Bibian filed a request for order (RFO), namely, a \"Gillmore order\" directing Dominic to pay Bibian her community interest in Dominic's retirement plan with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), along with attorney fees and costs. A \"domestic relations order\" (DRO) dividing the parties' 5 community property interests in Dominic's CalPERS plan was entered on Dec. 17, 2018. As of July 17, 2020, Dominic was eligible to retire but was still employed by his CalPERS-covered employer. Through her July 17, 2020 RFO, Bibian sought to enforce her rights under the DRO by obtaining immediate payment of her community"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e19e374f-f696-4bd9-8ffc-813a71fc8a45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10739109-10739109","title":"CourtListener opinion 10739109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ts holding in Gillmore, and the choices that the member and nonmember spouses have when the member becomes eligible for retirement: \"In [Gillmore], we held that retirement benefits that an employee spouse earns during a marriage to a nonemployee spouse are community property. On dissolution of the marriage, such benefits are subject to equal division. When the employee spouse becomes eligible for retirement, he may choose to retire and receive benefits or to continue to work. That is to say, he may retire and thereby commence drawing from the stream of income that then begins to flow, with the result that the nonemployee sp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10742931 Extracted reporter citation: 559 N.E.2d 1292. Docket: WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10742931 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: th Dist.). Also in 2020, appellant attempted to appeal the court's order on appellee's emergency motion to show cause relative to custody issues, which we dismissed for failure to comply with App.R. 3(A). In 2022, appellant appealed from the December 21, 2021 QDRO, arguing issues related to property division, ordered in the decree, which we addressed in Korfhage v. Fitzgerald, 2023-Ohio-744 (6th Dist.). The present appeal was filed in 2023. Most recently, appellant filed an appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to find appellee in contempt in 2024, which we dismissed upon appellant's failure to timely file"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rial court entered a temporary order, enjoining the parties from removing, transferring, encumbering, pledging, hypothecating, damaging, hiding, concealing, assigning, or disposing of any property without consent of court. The order specifically referenced retirement plans and enjoined the parties from liquidating or cashing in any retirement or pension plan. {¶ 3} After lengthy proceedings, the matter was tried to the court in 2019 and the trial court entered final judgment, granting divorce and dividing marital assets, on March 2, 2020, incorporating the decision of November 14, 2019, and adopting and incorporating a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cumbering, pledging, hypothecating, damaging, hiding, concealing, assigning, or disposing of any property without consent of court. The order specifically referenced retirement plans and enjoined the parties from liquidating or cashing in any retirement or pension plan. {¶ 3} After lengthy proceedings, the matter was tried to the court in 2019 and the trial court entered final judgment, granting divorce and dividing marital assets, on March 2, 2020, incorporating the decision of November 14, 2019, and adopting and incorporating appellee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pertinent to this appeal, the fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d4d1e0-5dbf-40ad-a326-ebc669f9c95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10742931-10742931","title":"CourtListener opinion 10742931","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'\" Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(l), Title 29, U.S. Code and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26 U.S. Code. A QDRO implements the trial court's decision regarding the division of property incident to divorce. Id. at ¶ 7. The sole purpose of the QDRO \"is to implement the terms of the divorce decree.\" Id. at ¶ 16. {¶ 29} As an order to execute the division of p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddc036a8-5c98-4257-b3e4-1ec1cb262abd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745149","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10745149 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10745149 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddc036a8-5c98-4257-b3e4-1ec1cb262abd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745149","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddc036a8-5c98-4257-b3e4-1ec1cb262abd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745149","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an: an: ** BEFORE ECKERLE A JONES AND TAYLOR JUDGES TAYLOR JUDGE Chastity Ellison appeals fiom a July 25 2023 Order entered by the Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), setting aside, mmc pro tune, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the family court on January 1 1, 2023 ' For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal as being interlocutory The marriage of Chastity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered into by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddc036a8-5c98-4257-b3e4-1ec1cb262abd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745149","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): stity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered into by the parties, the marital interest of Wayne's 401K account would be divided equally pursuant to a QDRO that the parties would agree to tender to the court The family court entered the QDRO on January 1 1, 2023 Wayne believed that the marital interest of the 401K account was $75,903 30, plus any investment earnings However, the QDRO language apparently allowed a distribution to Chastity from Wayne's non"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddc036a8-5c98-4257-b3e4-1ec1cb262abd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745149-10745149","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745149","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: RDER DISMISSING ** an: an: an: ** BEFORE ECKERLE A JONES AND TAYLOR JUDGES TAYLOR JUDGE Chastity Ellison appeals fiom a July 25 2023 Order entered by the Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), setting aside, mmc pro tune, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the family court on January 1 1, 2023 ' For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal as being interlocutory The marriage of Chastity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10745938 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1055 MDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10745938 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: were in excess of Husband's in the amount of $51,723.64, Wife was required to pay Husband one-half of the difference. -2- J-A07002-21 Following the Divorce Master's recommendation, the parties asked Jonathan Cramer of Conrad Siegel Inc. to prepare a qualified domestic relations order[ (\"QDRO\")] to effectuate the Divorce Master's decision regarding the pensions. When Mr. Cramer prepared a QDRO, he indicated that Wife's share should be paid to Husband's estate should Husband die first. Wife objected to this language. The parties resubmitted the issue to the Divorce Master, who vacated his initial report and solicited additional argu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ing benefits should Wife predecease him. Wife's monthly gross benefit as a result of her PSERS pension was $3,738.68. Wife began receiving Social Security benefits in the amount of $1,572 in 2016 when she reached sixty-two years of age. In addition to the retirement benefits, the parties' assets include a marital residence, vehicles, various bank accounts and personal property items. On January 15, 2016, Husband filed a Complaint in Divorce raising claims of divorce and equitable distribution. On January 18, 2019, Wife filed a motion for the appointment of a special master in divorce (hereafter Divorce Master). A Divorc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and mental health issues. Husband was fifty-five years old at the time of retirement earning approximately $55,000 annually. As a result of his retirement, Husband commenced benefits under his Public School Employment Retirement System (hereinafter PSERS) pension. The parties agreed that Husband would elect a single life annuity upon his retirement to provide him greater monthly benefit during ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A07002-21 his lifetime, understanding that Wife would not be entitled to any survivor benefits upon his death. Ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5d56111-c8d3-4681-85e8-99de12bcccc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10745938-10745938","title":"CourtListener opinion 10745938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: numerical form omitted). Wife filed exceptions, challenging the continuation of payments should Husband predecease her. The trial court disagreed and entered a final decree which, inter alia, provided that the QDRO include the following language: \"If the Alternate Payee dies before the Member, the Alternate Payee's share of the Member's annuity payable to PSERS shall be paid to the Alternate Payee's estate for the Member's lifetime.\" Final Decree, 7/21/20, at 4. Wife filed a timely notice of appeal, and both Wife and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Wife presents the following question for our resolution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eff3a6bf-f216-486d-b5e1-a1dc2314d1fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"251 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10746042 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 251 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746042 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eff3a6bf-f216-486d-b5e1-a1dc2314d1fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"251 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eff3a6bf-f216-486d-b5e1-a1dc2314d1fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746042-10746042","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"251 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nts due to his criminal charges as well as his physical limitations. The court does appreciate that there are some criminal charges that raise concerns about safety and parenting and some ____________________________________________ 3 CYF Exhibit 10 is a domestic relations order finding Father to be the biological father of Child. -7- J-S17003-21 that do not. Mother's retail theft from many years ago does not. The ones that most concern the court are those involving sex, drugs and violence. Unfortunately, [F]ather's criminal charges involve all three. Therefore, his ongoing commitment to the requirements of probation are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10746314 Extracted reporter citation: 580 A.2d 369. Docket: 562 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746314 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as \"Retirement Plans.\"[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter \"QDRO\") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Husband raised objections to specific language of the proposed QDRO. As a result of the ongoing disagreement over the language, Wife filed the petition for special relief tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 19 was executed by the parties. Said MSA was filed on July 29, 2019, and was incorporated in the divorce decree of the [trial court], which was filed the same date. The portion of the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as \"Retirement Plans.\"[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter \"QDRO\") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: al court], which was filed the same date. The portion of the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as \"Retirement Plans.\"[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter \"QDRO\") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Husband raised objections to specific language of the proposed QDRO. As a result of the ongoing disagreement over the l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6709b3a-4298-448c-a2aa-86916c25d7f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746314-10746314","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"562 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"580 A.2d 369","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: But you acknowledge, do you not, that the plan cannot pay to [Wife] money that—it's like a tier one and a tier two benefit; am I correct in that? [Mr. Cramer]: I mean if you're trying to fulfill a Social Security offset that has to be calculated in the domestic relations order. That wasn't in the settlement agreement, so we didn't make any calculations for that. (N.T. Hearing at 20-21) (emphasis added). Contrary to Husband's position, the court could not rewrite the MSA to add language requiring a Social Security set-off. See Sorace, supra. Moreover, the court correctly recognized that the case law relied on by Husband, i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"723e2316-2e0a-4f32-8124-9c6853743dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746599","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10746599 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 835 EDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746599 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"723e2316-2e0a-4f32-8124-9c6853743dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746599","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"723e2316-2e0a-4f32-8124-9c6853743dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746599","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 475.00, representing the stipulated value of the trusts plus interest. The trial court determined Husband owed Wife $9,292,283.00, to be paid in 60 days with (1) $3,292,283.00 coming from Husband's AXA Account; (2) $3,292,283.00 transferred from Husband's retirement account into a retirement account for Wife's benefit via a qualified -5- J-A01039-21 domestic relations order; and (3) $3,292,283.00 in a cash payment to Wife. Finally, the trial court awarded Wife 30% of the parties' business-related assets, which amounted to $2,126,101.00. As many of the business-related assets were not liquid, the trial court ordered Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"723e2316-2e0a-4f32-8124-9c6853743dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746599","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: usband owed Wife $9,292,283.00, to be paid in 60 days with (1) $3,292,283.00 coming from Husband's AXA Account; (2) $3,292,283.00 transferred from Husband's retirement account into a retirement account for Wife's benefit via a qualified -5- J-A01039-21 domestic relations order; and (3) $3,292,283.00 in a cash payment to Wife. Finally, the trial court awarded Wife 30% of the parties' business-related assets, which amounted to $2,126,101.00. As many of the business-related assets were not liquid, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $17,717.00 in 120 equal monthly installments along with three percent interest. Wife ag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"723e2316-2e0a-4f32-8124-9c6853743dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746599-10746599","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746599","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: D SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 Appellant, Timothy Mohen, (\"Husband\") appeals from the February 3, 2020 order, which amended a January 8, 2020 order and decree that both dissolved the marriage between Husband and Appellee, Christine Mohen, (\"Wife\") and provided for equitable distribution of their assets. For the following reasons, we affirm, in part, and vacate, in part. Specifically, we vacate the portion of the January 8, 2020 order that erroneously charges Husband with $4,360,158.00 in unaccrued interest on marital assets Husband fraudulently dissipated from the marital estate. Because this disposition of an issue raised on appeal a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10746719 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 812. Docket: 1203 EDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746719 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a hearing on September 17, 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the \"Trust\"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the \"Trust\"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in part, stating that Appellant, as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ) regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the \"Trust\"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in part, stating that Appellant, as a former spouse, is ineligible for survivorship benefits under Appellee's pension.1 In specific: Paragraph 9 of the original Pension QDRO provided that Appellant was entitled to a portion of the survivor benefit payable under the Police Pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f926b6c0-1215-404e-bcfb-f7340050d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746719-10746719","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1203 EDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: -1102 BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2021 Appellant, Theresa Cuth, appeals from the May 1, 2020 decree of divorce. We affirm. On August 13, 2015, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce and equitable distribution against Appellee, Brian A. Cuth, after twenty-two years of marriage. An appointed Master conducted a hearing on September 17, 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10746999 Extracted reporter citation: 916 A.2d 1128. Docket: 209 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746999 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property of Wife subject to the loan balance of about $15,000.00. The loan shall be the sole responsibility of Wife, who shall indemnify and hold Husband harmless from any and all liability concerning the loan."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hereinafter set forth. Alternatively, if the home is foreclosed upon, any deficiency shall be paid 60% by Husband and 40% by Wife. If there are any net proceeds, they shall be dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): f debts as hereinafter set forth. Alternatively, if the home is foreclosed upon, any deficiency shall be paid 60% by Husband and 40% by Wife. If there are any net proceeds, they shall be dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc70b5f-95e3-45d1-a56f-392da5548839","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10746999-10746999","title":"CourtListener opinion 10746999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"209 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"916 A.2d 1128","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property of Wife subject to the loan balance of about $15,000.00. The loan shall be the sole responsibility of Wife, who shall indemnify and hold Husband harmless from any and all liability concerning the loan."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9692be-c2cf-4e18-95fe-98f9c23b615c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970","title":"CourtListener opinion 1074970","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16910-C","extracted_reporter_citation":"565 S.W.2d 876","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1074970 Extracted reporter citation: 565 S.W.2d 876. Docket: 16910-C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1074970 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9692be-c2cf-4e18-95fe-98f9c23b615c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970","title":"CourtListener opinion 1074970","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16910-C","extracted_reporter_citation":"565 S.W.2d 876","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9692be-c2cf-4e18-95fe-98f9c23b615c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970","title":"CourtListener opinion 1074970","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16910-C","extracted_reporter_citation":"565 S.W.2d 876","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ac 6000. Each party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order. 8. That the Husband shall be responsible for the arrearages on alimony and the household bills in the amount of ONE THOU"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9692be-c2cf-4e18-95fe-98f9c23b615c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970","title":"CourtListener opinion 1074970","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16910-C","extracted_reporter_citation":"565 S.W.2d 876","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Chevy Pickup Truck, his Camaro, the 1984 Tempo, the farm tractor and the dune buggy. Wife shall be awarded the 1985 Pontiac 6000. Each party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) da"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9692be-c2cf-4e18-95fe-98f9c23b615c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1074970-1074970","title":"CourtListener opinion 1074970","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16910-C","extracted_reporter_citation":"565 S.W.2d 876","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ach party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order. 8. That the Husband shall be responsible for the arrearages on alimony and the household bills in the amount of ONE THOU"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10751393 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10751393 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 20} In Bulson, a client retained Bulson to represent her in a domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court entered an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson \"did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him.\" Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: arranted an actual suspension because he had previously received a fully stayed suspension in a prior disciplinary case. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 22} In Arkow, 2022-Ohio-3209, a client paid the attorney in November 2019 to obtain a QDRO to divide her former husband's retirement account. Id. at ¶ 5. Arkow falsely assured the client that he had submitted her information to a company that would prepare the QDRO and was waiting for it to be processed, 8 January Term, 2024 delaying the matter for over a year. Id. at ¶ 6-7. Eventually, the client informed Arkow that she was going to file a grievance against him, after which Arkow attempted"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court entered an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson \"did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him.\" Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as pra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"701966d6-46fb-47ab-a890-6cf70d457537","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10751393-10751393","title":"CourtListener opinion 10751393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: o Ryan's securing a divorce decree for Smith and did not include postdecree work, such as orders to divide marital property. {¶ 6} On October 13, 2017, the domestic-relations court issued the divorce decree. In the decree, the court awarded Smith half of the marital portion of her former husband's interest in his Ohio Public Employees Retirement (\"OPERS\") account. However, Smith could not access her share of that account until the domestic-relations court entered a division of property order (\"DOPO\") in the divorce action. {¶ 7} On September 5, 2018, Smith sent a text message to Ryan requesting that she finalize the DOPO. Rya"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47263681-ad57-4d9a-aa55-5f732e381289","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075230","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1075230 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1075230 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47263681-ad57-4d9a-aa55-5f732e381289","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075230","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47263681-ad57-4d9a-aa55-5f732e381289","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075230","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to the DCI Credits: 4 Q. All right. Now, you do understand, though, in the deferred compensation that truly is not paid out until he does retire or is disabled? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Are you willing to wait until those events happened just like a normal retirement plan? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you asking him to pay you that at this time? A. No. Similarly, during cross-examination by Husband's attorney, Wife testified as follows: Q. In your request for half of the $90,000 approximately in the agent's incentive credit plan, you realize that there's no place to get that money from him until he draws it? .... A. Are yo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47263681-ad57-4d9a-aa55-5f732e381289","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075230","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): parties agreed to a division of personal marital property whereby Husband received personal property with a total value of $8,590, and Wife received personal property with an total value of $6,867.00. Husband had an IRA with a $37,174 value, and Wife had a 401k plan through her employment at Behavior Technology valued at $1,640. Additionally, Husband had a life insurance policy in the face amount of $123,940 with a present cash surrender value of $11,819. He also had a term life insurance policy in the face amount of $20,000, though this term policy had no cash value. Wife had a life insurance policy in the fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47263681-ad57-4d9a-aa55-5f732e381289","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075230-1075230","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075230","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f $1,880 to Husband at the time when Husband furnishes Wife the new vehicle referred to above; 5. \"[t]hat Wife's 401k Plan, having a value of $1,640, be awarded to her\"; 6. that Husband's $37,174 IRA \"be divided equally between the parties via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\"; 7. that a credit union account, having an approximate value of $1,500, be awarded to Wife; and 8. that Husband \"assign one-half the value of his Extended Earnings Benefit with Nationwide and one-half the value of the DCIC Deferred Compensation Plan with Nationwide to [Wife], said value to be determined at the time of draw-down or at the time [Husban"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e456e5-a47e-446e-8714-431e20fe4112","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773","title":"CourtListener opinion 10752773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA012069 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10752773 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24CA012069 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10752773 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e456e5-a47e-446e-8714-431e20fe4112","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773","title":"CourtListener opinion 10752773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA012069 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e456e5-a47e-446e-8714-431e20fe4112","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773","title":"CourtListener opinion 10752773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA012069 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt addresses Husband's pension (\"the Pension\"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at issue in this appeal. Husband agreed in this section to pay Wife $2,300 per month in spousal support, commencing in January 2019, \"until [he] receives his pension.\" Section six states in relevant part: Husband agrees to pay Wife, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e456e5-a47e-446e-8714-431e20fe4112","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773","title":"CourtListener opinion 10752773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA012069 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Witten (\"Wife\") and Thomas G. Witten (\"Husband\") married at common law in 1982 and divorced in 2018. The divorce decree approved and incorporated the parties' separation agreement. {¶3} Section five of the parties' separation agreement addresses Husband's pension (\"the Pension\"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e456e5-a47e-446e-8714-431e20fe4112","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10752773-10752773","title":"CourtListener opinion 10752773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA012069 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: parties' separation agreement addresses Husband's pension (\"the Pension\"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at issue in this appeal. Husband agreed in this section to pay Wife $2,300 per month in spousal support, commencing in January 2019, \"until [he] receives his pension.\" Section six states in relevant part: Husband agrees to pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4ef7d78-9c4a-410f-8dd9-61a781a15417","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10753069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"651 F.3d 715","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10753069 Extracted reporter citation: 651 F.3d 715. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10753069 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4ef7d78-9c4a-410f-8dd9-61a781a15417","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10753069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"651 F.3d 715","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4ef7d78-9c4a-410f-8dd9-61a781a15417","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10753069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"651 F.3d 715","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: id prejudice to a party or promote judicial economy. Only one of these criteria— avoidance of prejudice or judicial economy—need be met before a court can order separation. Next, the court must be satisfied that the decision to meet the standards of a \"qualified domestic relations order[,]\" as discussed in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). (See ECF 4-5). 6 Good cause is also met for this amendment to the pleadings under Rule 16(b) for the same reason expressed supra in footnote 2. Further, the Court notes that none of the cautionary harms associated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) are applica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4ef7d78-9c4a-410f-8dd9-61a781a15417","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10753069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"651 F.3d 715","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s a motion by Defendant Sun Life Assurance of Canada (\"Sun Life\") seeking to join a new party to this matter and bifurcate claims into separate trials. (ECF 36). On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Hien Tran filed this suit, claiming relief against Sun Life for an ERISA benefit regarding her now deceased husband, or in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants Veolia Utility Resources LLC and Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston. (ECF 1). Sun Life has since received a competing claim1 for the ERISA benefit from the decedent's former wife, Sally Ann Lombardo, causing Sun Life to request that Lombardo b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4ef7d78-9c4a-410f-8dd9-61a781a15417","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10753069-10753069","title":"CourtListener opinion 10753069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"651 F.3d 715","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dice to a party or promote judicial economy. Only one of these criteria— avoidance of prejudice or judicial economy—need be met before a court can order separation. Next, the court must be satisfied that the decision to meet the standards of a \"qualified domestic relations order[,]\" as discussed in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). (See ECF 4-5). 6 Good cause is also met for this amendment to the pleadings under Rule 16(b) for the same reason expressed supra in footnote 2. Further, the Court notes that none of the cautionary harms associated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) are applica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10754408 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFERY ALAN MAU AND ANN MARIE MAU Upon the Petition of JEFFERY ALAN MAU. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24-0100. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10754408 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to show cause relating to sale of the marital home and a dispute over costs, the lawyering grew contentious, and the court found Ann Marie in contempt. Ann Marie then filed a motion for court involvement relating to the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that was the subject of a previous appeal and petitioned to modify the decree such that she had sole legal custody of the minor child. Jeff counterclaimed seeking sole legal custody and physical care for himself. As the district court put it, \"[b]oth parents [took] an all-or-nothing approach.\" 3 Discovery disputes followed, and the court denied a mot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: itions for modification. On appeal, Jeff raises four issues—concerning legal custody and physical care of a minor child, the admissibility of certain evidence (including pre-decree conduct), division of assets after sale of the home, and division of Jeff's retirement accounts. Ann Marie resists each of Jeff's arguments and requests appellate attorney fees. On our review, we affirm and order Jeff to pay Ann Marie $15,647.50 in fees. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Jeff and Ann Marie divorced by stipulation in February 2020. They agreed to joint legal custody and Anne Marie having physical care of their then-six-year-o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r their ages. As a result, the specific QDRO that we ordered be approved did not implement the Benson formula; the inputs were wrong, so the outputs were too. Under Benson, the numerator is the [number of years of marriage while also participating in the pension plan] while Jeff's proposed QDRO has the numerator as solely [the number of years of marriage]. See 545 N.W.2d at 255. The denominator is the number of years the account existed in total. Id. Jeff's proposed QDRO used a single age—the oldest account—in its calculations, even though the funds at issue consist of multiple accounts with differing ages. Lon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90e842f-f141-4b7a-adf3-38ffaeb46213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10754408-10754408","title":"CourtListener opinion 10754408","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-0100","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): for defined-benefit plans (like [federal and state government] pensions).\" In re Marriage of Bolger, No. 22-1201, 2023 WL 7378490, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023) (citing Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 256 n.1 (\"[I]t may be more appropriate to divide and distribute defined contribution plans under the present-value method.\")). 16 percentages at the request of the custodian, ruled that, including the offsets, Ann Marie would receive 62.53% of the total retirement assets and Jeff 37.47%. Jeff asserts on appeal that the Ameriprise fund should be divided such that he receives 58% and Ann Marie 42%—based on a third set of calculations. Bu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a52e4ea-96d2-4cdd-b2db-5f2c61f82380","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1075459 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1075459 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a52e4ea-96d2-4cdd-b2db-5f2c61f82380","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a52e4ea-96d2-4cdd-b2db-5f2c61f82380","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1075459-1075459","title":"CourtListener opinion 1075459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: James W. Haley, Jr., Judge (Sandra C. Graves; Rinehart & Strentz, on briefs), for appellant. (Owaiian M. Jones, on brief), for appellee. George A. Langhorne appeals the decision of the circuit judge denying his Motion for Entry of an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He contends that the trial judge's ruling did not comport with the formula in the final decree of divorce or the recommendations of the commissioner in chancery. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the trial judge's decision. See Rule 5A:27. The record o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8943994-1b87-4a09-858b-7ef4309a8ef4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277","title":"CourtListener opinion 10755277","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10755277 Extracted case name: STALLINGS v. STALLINGS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10755277 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8943994-1b87-4a09-858b-7ef4309a8ef4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277","title":"CourtListener opinion 10755277","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8943994-1b87-4a09-858b-7ef4309a8ef4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277","title":"CourtListener opinion 10755277","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Wife petitioned for legal separation in August 2021. Husband moved to convert the separation petition to a dissolution proceeding in December 2022. ¶3 During the marriage, Husband worked for the City of Tempe. As part of his compensation, Husband received a retirement benefit called a PEHP, a tax-free trust account that pays for qualified health care expenses incurred by the employee, spouse, and qualified dependents after retirement. See generally I.R.C. § 501(c)(9) (recognizing voluntary employees' beneficiary associations as tax exempt organizations). ¶4 The parties agreed that the PEHP could not be liquidated or divided by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8943994-1b87-4a09-858b-7ef4309a8ef4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277","title":"CourtListener opinion 10755277","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: employee, spouse, and qualified dependents after retirement. See generally I.R.C. § 501(c)(9) (recognizing voluntary employees' beneficiary associations as tax exempt organizations). ¶4 The parties agreed that the PEHP could not be liquidated or divided by a domestic relations order. According to Wife's expert, the community portion of the PEHP was $94,931.60. Husband argued that the PEHP was not a community asset because community funds were not paid into it and that the court could not allocate it. The court found the PEHP was community property and the community's interest was $94,931.50. The court ordered Husband to pay half that a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8943994-1b87-4a09-858b-7ef4309a8ef4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10755277-10755277","title":"CourtListener opinion 10755277","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ns order. According to Wife's expert, the community portion of the PEHP was $94,931.60. Husband argued that the PEHP was not a community asset because community funds were not paid into it and that the court could not allocate it. The court found the PEHP was community property and the community's interest was $94,931.50. The court ordered Husband to pay half that amount to Wife. ¶5 In 2005, the parties sold their marital home. According to Wife, they then moved into and planned to purchase a home Husband's parents owned. Husband told Wife he used $20,000 in sale proceeds from their marital home as a down payment to his parents,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10757622 Extracted reporter citation: 650 F. Supp. 3d 259. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10757622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 68). Critically, the FAC alleges that these services are offered by all recordkeepers in this class for one price, typically a per capita price, \"regardless of the services chosen or utilized by the plan.\" App'x 106 (FAC ¶ 69). \"Ancillary services,\" like \"QDRO's, participant loans, and self-directed brokerage accounts are normally charged to only participants using those ancillary services.\" Id. Moreover, \"[a]lthough the 401(k) participant servicing can vary slightly in the various service levels, the actual cost to a large record keeper with a very robust participant servicing system remains almost constant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: similarly situated, JONI WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JENNY MARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -v.- DELOITTE LLP, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DELOITTE LLP, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF DELOITTE LLP, JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants-Appellees. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, NARDINI, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. Participants in Deloitte LLP's defined-contribution, 401(k) retirement plan brought a putative class action against plan fiduciaries, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ore \"give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.\" Id. It is not \"necessarily sufficient to show that better investment opportunities were available at the time of the relevant decisions.\" Pension Ben. 6Plaintiffs' claim of excessive fees constitutes an imprudent investment claim. See Young v. Gen. Motors Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 325 Fed. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 10 Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Centers Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 718 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d17697a8-7014-476d-ac27-ecd22ddabb5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10757622-10757622","title":"CourtListener opinion 10757622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"650 F. Supp. 3d 259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nd ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. Participants in Deloitte LLP's defined-contribution, 401(k) retirement plan brought a putative class action against plan fiduciaries, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.) dismissed the action and subsequently denied Plaintiffs' motion for 1 leave to file an amended complaint on futility grounds. We conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that the Plan's administrative and reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c18afec9-4fa9-4157-83b2-e963a0fa0beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1076169 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076169 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c18afec9-4fa9-4157-83b2-e963a0fa0beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c18afec9-4fa9-4157-83b2-e963a0fa0beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE William N. Alexander, II, Judge Robert P. Dwoskin for appellant. Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the tri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c18afec9-4fa9-4157-83b2-e963a0fa0beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076169-1076169","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the trial court's interpretation of the decree is plainly wrong. Because we find that the QDRO was not a substantive change and the trial court's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10762979 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 15 N.E.3d 108. Docket: 24A-DN-716. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10762979 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marriage on November 21, 2008. Husband's prior marriage was 30 years in duration and encompassed almost the entire time of Husband's membership in the Carpenters Union which began in 1976. This Court granted Husband's prior wife a 20% Separate Interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this Carpenters Union Pension.… The parties enjoyed the benefit of Husband's receipt of his Carpenters Union Pension monthly benefit which he began receiving in August 2010. For 12 years of the marriage, this pension benefit helped Husband contribute to the family's finances until he filed this dissolution of marriage action in December 2022. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ummary [1] Following the trial court's dissolution of the marriage between Leesa A. Gatton (Wife) and Robert D. Gatton (Husband), Wife argues that the trial court erred in its treatment of Husband's pension and in failing to include Husband's individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History 1 [2] Husband and Wife were married in March 2010. No children were born of the marriage. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on December 20, 2022. The parties filed a stipulated inventory of all assets and liabilities that existed at th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mber 18, 2024 Page 1 of 21 Crone, Senior Judge. Case Summary [1] Following the trial court's dissolution of the marriage between Leesa A. Gatton (Wife) and Robert D. Gatton (Husband), Wife argues that the trial court erred in its treatment of Husband's pension and in failing to include Husband's individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History 1 [2] Husband and Wife were married in March 2010. No children were born of the marriage. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on December 20, 2022. The parties filed a sti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5f60668-7836-4628-923f-230650072e9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10762979-10762979","title":"CourtListener opinion 10762979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-716","extracted_reporter_citation":"15 N.E.3d 108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ns, she refinanced for more money than was owing on the existing mortgage so that she could pay off a car loan and contribute to the payment of her daughter's wedding. Husband received no proceeds from any of these refinancings. Husband also cashed in his 401(k) in 2020 to assist the parties in paying taxes. 34. Prior to the parties' marriage, the parties purchased the marital residence in Wife's name in 2008. At least some of Wife's inheritance of $20,000.00 was used to assist in the purchase of that residence and in Husband's conversion of a porch into a master bedroom. The Court was not presented informat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10763079 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Morgan. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10763079 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n for reconsideration, asserting that Valencia had \"sat on her rights\" and that the defense of laches applied. He maintained that Valencia failed to timely seek a QILDRO and that he was not responsible for ensuring that Valencia received her portion of his retirement benefits. He also argued that \"even if Valencia is to be awarded retroactive pay,\" the circuit court miscalculated the amount of the retroactive award by failing to account for taxes. According to Alexsei, the correct amounts—after accounting for taxes—were $21,411 (for the monthly pension amounts) and $72,843 (for the COLA distribution). ¶ 16 Valencia responde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ton (Alexsei) filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Valencia Norton (Valencia) in the circuit court of Cook County. In the judgment for dissolution of marriage entered in 2018, the circuit court awarded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public employee retirement sy"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: warded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public employee retirement system (see 40 ILCS 5/1-119(a)(6) (West 2022)). While Valencia received monthly payments of her portion of Alexsei's pension after the June 2022 effective date of the QILDRO, she argued that she was entitled to a retroactive awar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2fd8c4-472b-4928-ad22-2e822a7997ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10763079-10763079","title":"CourtListener opinion 10763079","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ot appealable. ¶2 Alexsei Norton (Alexsei) filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Valencia Norton (Valencia) in the circuit court of Cook County. In the judgment for dissolution of marriage entered in 2018, the circuit court awarded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1076460 Extracted reporter citation: 748 S.W.2d 424. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076460 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd argued that both the bonus and the stock options should be considered marital property, subject to division. The trial court agreed, and ordered that the $15,000 bonus be divided equally between the parties when it was received. The court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to divide the unvested stock options equally. The wife argued on appeal that those unvested assets were not marital property, and thus were not subject to division. In the alternative, she argued that the trial court erred in dividing the $15,000 before income taxes, ultimately leaving her a lesser share than the husband. Both parties cite the case"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t for divorce on April 24, 1996, after sixteen years of marriage to Adrienne Vivian Holmes Brandon. Both parties worked at well-paying jobs during the marriage, and they had accumulated a considerable amount of property, which included real estate, stocks, retirement accounts, furniture, jewelry, vehicles, farming equipment and livestock. The parties stipulated to grounds during a hearing on September 24, 1997. The trial court issued a final decree granting the divorce to both parties on January 12, 1998. The court awarded the parties their respective bank accounts, pensions, and 401(k) accounts. The husband was awarded t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he $19,000 borrowed from her 401(k)), made improvements to her mother's house, and invested $50,000 in a financial services company that she had started in anticipation of a possible downsizing by Atmos. Her 401(k) was worth over $66,000, her United Cities pension was worth over $37,000, and her Atmos energy stocks and vested stock options were worth about $14,700. Mr. Brandon had a 401(k) account at CNA worth over $41,000, a CNA pension valued at over $19,000, and a Traveler's Insurance Company pension valued at almost $29,000. The farming equipment he owned was worth over $20,000, and his livestock was likew"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75df9928-3af0-41de-a35a-32d54111a53a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076460-1076460","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076460","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"748 S.W.2d 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): vestock. The parties stipulated to grounds during a hearing on September 24, 1997. The trial court issued a final decree granting the divorce to both parties on January 12, 1998. The court awarded the parties their respective bank accounts, pensions, and 401(k) accounts. The husband was awarded the marital home (which was built on land he had jointly owned with his brother), his pickup truck, farming equipment, land and livestock. The wife was awarded a residence she had purchased, using $19,000 she had borrowed from her 401(k) as a down payment, and her Lexus. The court placed a valuation on each item of pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1076772 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076772 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l share was erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the court's final decree calculated the present value of husband's pension, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which the court subsequently entered did not rely upon present value. That order calculated the marital share of husband's pension as a fraction of the total pension, based upon the parties' final separation date of February 1992. Specifically, the court awarded wife a pro rata portion of the marital share, defined as: one-half (1/2) of the fr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: er; Gardner, Gardner, Barrow & Sharpe, on brief), for appellee. Robert W. Gore (husband) appeals the final decree of divorce and equitable distribution entered by the circuit court. Husband contends that the trial court erred in (1) valuing the parties' retirement benefits, (2) awarding attorney's fees to Sylvia S. Gore (wife), (3) requiring husband to pay wife the value of a lost engagement ring, (4) awarding wife one-half the face value of savings bonds, and (5) awarding wife $375 in monthly spousal support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Pensions Husband contends that wife's expert erred in valuing his pension, that the present value calculation used post-separation * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. salary increases, that the marital share was erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f82c7033-cfea-4c4d-a61c-e7f4e5ba7573","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1076772-1076772","title":"CourtListener opinion 1076772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the court's final decree calculated the present value of husband's pension, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which the court subsequently entered did not rely upon present value. That order calculated the marital share of husband's pension as a fraction of the total pension, based upon the parties' final separation date of February 1992. Specifically, the court awarded wife a pro rata portion of the marital share, defined as: one-half (1/2) of the fr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc54ae24-588f-4833-bb62-9b434f9d05ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632","title":"CourtListener opinion 10770632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10770632 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hoster. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10770632 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc54ae24-588f-4833-bb62-9b434f9d05ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632","title":"CourtListener opinion 10770632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc54ae24-588f-4833-bb62-9b434f9d05ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10770632-10770632","title":"CourtListener opinion 10770632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: after [Tiffany] has fully vacated and established her residence outside the former marital residence.\" The court did not enter a finding under Rule 304(a). ¶9 On March 12, 2024, Tiffany filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a Motion to Modify Order of February 14, 2024. On March 13, 2024, Tiffany filed a second motion seeking to modify and vacate the same order. On March 28, 2024, the circuit court denied her motions, and Tiffany appealed. 3 ¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 11 On appeal, Tiffany claims the court misapplied the law when it (1) ordered the sale of the former m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecce807a-d2b5-49de-9b8c-bc3eb5cc85cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613","title":"CourtListener opinion 1077613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1077613 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1077613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecce807a-d2b5-49de-9b8c-bc3eb5cc85cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613","title":"CourtListener opinion 1077613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecce807a-d2b5-49de-9b8c-bc3eb5cc85cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613","title":"CourtListener opinion 1077613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge (Beverly D. Crawford; El-Amin & Crawford, on brief), for appellant. (James Edward Sheffield, on brief), for appellee. Eunice P. Todd (wife) appeals from the circuit court's qualified domestic relations order and final decree awarding a divorce to James E. Todd (husband). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Wife contends that the commissioner abused his discretion by refusing to allow her to submit additional eviden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecce807a-d2b5-49de-9b8c-bc3eb5cc85cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1077613-1077613","title":"CourtListener opinion 1077613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: IRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge (Beverly D. Crawford; El-Amin & Crawford, on brief), for appellant. (James Edward Sheffield, on brief), for appellee. Eunice P. Todd (wife) appeals from the circuit court's qualified domestic relations order and final decree awarding a divorce to James E. Todd (husband). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Wife contends that the commissioner abused his discretion by refusing to allow her to submit additional eviden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10776130 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776130 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt for the period ending September 2014, which listed the value as $157,308.43. Additionally, the trial court found that there was evidence of substantial communication between counsel for the parties, as well as the attorney who was retained to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), regarding the type and value of the petitioner's retirement accounts. Accordingly, the trial court concluded: The evidence does not establish that [the petitioner] deceived [the respondent] about the value of her retirement account or that [the respondent] solely relied on the value listed on the May 1, 2015 financial affidavit as the basis for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: modification of an alimony award.\" Id. at 528-29. In this case, the parties signed a mediated final divorce decree on May 1, 2015. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a financial affidavit, in which she represented that one of her assets was a 401(k) retirement account valued at $157,000 — the same value as that set forth in her prior financial affidavit, submitted on January 28, 2015. As part of the distribution of marital property set forth in the final decree, the respondent was awarded $55,000 of the petitioner's retirement account. He was also awarded alimony in the amount of $700 per month for a period of approxima"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): warrant modification of an alimony award.\" Id. at 528-29. In this case, the parties signed a mediated final divorce decree on May 1, 2015. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a financial affidavit, in which she represented that one of her assets was a 401(k) retirement account valued at $157,000 — the same value as that set forth in her prior financial affidavit, submitted on January 28, 2015. As part of the distribution of marital property set forth in the final decree, the respondent was awarded $55,000 of the petitioner's retirement account. He was also awarded alimony in the amount of $700 per month for a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be1784ed-6030-4ba6-8609-68924f7c2559","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776130-10776130","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776130","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: period ending September 2014, which listed the value as $157,308.43. Additionally, the trial court found that there was evidence of substantial communication between counsel for the parties, as well as the attorney who was retained to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), regarding the type and value of the petitioner's retirement accounts. Accordingly, the trial court concluded: The evidence does not establish that [the petitioner] deceived [the respondent] about the value of her retirement account or that [the respondent] solely relied on the value listed on the May 1, 2015 financial affidavit as the basis for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10776214 Extracted reporter citation: 889 A.2d 1251. Docket: 1161 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776214 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rital by the parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork and furnishings with the intention of getting that accomplished on or before August 30th, at which time [W]ife is to have vacated [Husband's pre-marital] home on East Drive [(the Marital Residence)]. . . . I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ited the terms of the MSA on the record. Of relevance to this appeal, the parties agreed to the following: So Plaintiff/Wife shall receive the following assets identified as marital by the parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork and furnishings with the intention of getting that accomplished on or before August 30th, at which time [W]ife is to have vacated [Husband's pre-marital] home on East Drive [(the Marital Residence)]. . . . I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3c2946e-ff0b-4ee5-abed-f776e62e2455","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776214-10776214","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776214","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1161 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"889 A.2d 1251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ance for which he will be solely responsible and indemnify [Wife]. * * * [Husband] will also receive sole and exclusive ownership of the silver saddle, which is a show saddle, which the parties estimate to have significant value. . . . Finally, as to equitable distribution, [Husband] will pay an additional sum of $25,000 on top of the life insurance equity that [Wife] is to receive as soon as practical. Our understanding is that's going to happen this week so that [Wife] has an aggregate of $50,000 cash in her possession and available to her by the end of the week. * * * As to alimony and alimony pendente lite, the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10776873 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McCausland. Extracted reporter citation: 335 P.3d 984. Docket: 57522-1-II property. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776873 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: distribution order, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e0d815-1932-4111-bc24-7c847e7822b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10776873-10776873","title":"CourtListener opinion 10776873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57522-1-II property. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 P.3d 984","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b775456-43c8-40d9-b600-61ec21ad0614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836","title":"CourtListener opinion 10777836","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10777836 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10777836 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b775456-43c8-40d9-b600-61ec21ad0614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836","title":"CourtListener opinion 10777836","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b775456-43c8-40d9-b600-61ec21ad0614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836","title":"CourtListener opinion 10777836","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: County from 1991 to 2000. The divorce decree incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA), which awarded Latimer one-half of Walker's PERS retirement benefit and provided that Latimer's share would be secured by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that allowed Latimer to elect Option 2. The QDRO provided that Latimer \\is entitled to a portion of the Participant's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b775456-43c8-40d9-b600-61ec21ad0614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10777836-10777836","title":"CourtListener opinion 10777836","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ., Advance Opinion c2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LAURA J. WALKER, N/K/A LAURA J. No. 86548 LATIMER, Appellant, vs. FILED r EGAN KIRK WALKER, JAN 09 2025 Respondent. Appeal from a district court post-divorce-decree order regarding retirement benefits. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; William A. Maddox, Sr. Judge. Affirrned in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Dietrich Law Group and Raymond S. Dietrich, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Smith Jain Stutzman and Kimberly A. Stutzman and Radford J. Smith, Henderson, for Respondent. Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada and Ian"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46942cf3-19fe-48bc-9199-e3152c53e69d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10780794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10780794 Extracted case name: AFTUCK v. AFTUCK. HODGES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10780794 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46942cf3-19fe-48bc-9199-e3152c53e69d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10780794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46942cf3-19fe-48bc-9199-e3152c53e69d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10780794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: proceeds to cover the mortgage that the Husband took out in his own name\"). Wife cites to Mermann v. Tillitski, 297 Ga. 881, 883 (778 SE2d 191) (2015), which found that even where the wife failed to follow the divorce decree's mandate that she prepare a qualified domestic relations order (\"QRDO\") within 30 days of the signing of a settlement agreement, nothing in the agreement suggested this meant she would forfeit earnings in the husband's IRA accruing after the 30-day period to provide the QRDO had run. Here, however, the pertinent issue is whether the Decree prohibited Husband from changing share allocations prior to any transfer to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46942cf3-19fe-48bc-9199-e3152c53e69d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10780794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: See Morgan v. Morgan, 288 Ga. 417, 419 (2) (704 SE2d 764) (2011) (finding trial court improperly modified divorce decree and did more than merely clarify or construe imprecise language when it supplied a \"missing percentage allocation of Husband's military retirement benefits\" in Wife's favor where parties had a mutual misunderstanding of how Husband's Navy retirement account would function); 10 Roquemore v. Burgess, 281 Ga. 593, 595 (642 SE2d 41) (2007) (concluding trial court improperly modified divorce settlement agreement by requiring payment of agreed- upon sum from proceeds of sale of marital residence, where plain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46942cf3-19fe-48bc-9199-e3152c53e69d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10780794-10780794","title":"CourtListener opinion 10780794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to cover the mortgage that the Husband took out in his own name\"). Wife cites to Mermann v. Tillitski, 297 Ga. 881, 883 (778 SE2d 191) (2015), which found that even where the wife failed to follow the divorce decree's mandate that she prepare a qualified domestic relations order (\"QRDO\") within 30 days of the signing of a settlement agreement, nothing in the agreement suggested this meant she would forfeit earnings in the husband's IRA accruing after the 30-day period to provide the QRDO had run. Here, however, the pertinent issue is whether the Decree prohibited Husband from changing share allocations prior to any transfer to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10781865 Extracted reporter citation: 647 F.3d 221. Docket: 32 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781865 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019 Appellant, Tina M. Jago (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, which vacated a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") the court had previously entered upon joint petition of Wife and Geoffrey H. Jago (\"Husband\") and denied the parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlue Airways Retirement Plan (\"Plan\").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: granting an interest in the benefits of the participant's retirement plan to a non-participant. Id. at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(1)). \"The purpose of the proscription, in ERISA, on alienation and assignment of pension funds is to protect the participant from [the participant's] own financial improvidence.\" Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2001). ERISA's anti-alienation provision is compulsory and has few limited statutory exceptions. Boggs, supra at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1056(d)(2), (3)(A)). ERISA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2b04ac4-cfa3-4e49-84fb-10908209319f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781865-10781865","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781865","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: (\"Plan\").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S26018-19 the couple filed a \"Verified Joint Petition for QDRO.\" In the petition, the parties sought to transfer $400,000.00 from the Plan to an individual retirement account (\"IRA\") in Wife's name. The petition"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10781926 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 208 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781926 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: January 22, 2009. In that petition, Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to sign the QDROs she prepared, as required by the Order and the Amended Order.4 Petition to Enforce Order of Court, 1/22/2009. On May 1, 2009, the trial court entered a QDRO as an order of court (2009 QDRO). The 2009 QDRO, which was signed by Husband and Wife, provided that Wife's portion of the retirement benefit would be calculated ____________________________________________ 4 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a particip"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A22026-19 Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993). In Berrington, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in a deferred distribution of a defined benefit pension, the spouse not participating may not be awarded any portion of the participant-spouse's retirement benefits which are based on post- separation salary increases, incentive awards or years of service. Any retirement benefits awarded to the non-participant spouse must be based only on the participant-spouse's salary at the date of separation. 633 A.2d at 594 (emphasis added).2 On January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature passed subsection (c) of secti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: BER 15, 2019 John William Getty (Husband) appeals from the order entered December 17, 2018, which denied his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. This case involves the application of an important1 change in Pennsylvania law with respect to how pension plans are valued in divorce cases. Specifically, on January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted legislation that overruled our Supreme Court's holding in Berrington v. ____________________________________________ 1 Among the amicus participants in Berrington, infra, were the following entities: the Pennsylvania Chapter of American Academy of M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12874af2-f0c6-43e7-869d-462cf4680ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781926-10781926","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781926","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e employee spouse in the value of the pension.\" 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501 (comment to subsec. (c)). In other words, the pension was to be valued using the employee-spouse's salary as of the date of retirement, not as of the date of separation as in Berrington. The marital portion of the pension would be calculated by the use of a coverture fraction. See Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007). Moreover, on June 15, 2005, the legislature again amended subsection 3501(c) to provide that it was applicable to all proceedings pending on or after January 28, 2005. ____________________________________________ 2 The author of this opin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94b32b14-9b10-4205-9eb2-ff0ece117814","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781946","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10781946 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3315 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781946 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94b32b14-9b10-4205-9eb2-ff0ece117814","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781946","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94b32b14-9b10-4205-9eb2-ff0ece117814","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781946-10781946","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781946","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nter such an order after conducting a conference on the petition. Here, the trial court conducted a hearing on Father's petition. At the hearing, Mother testified that she did not directly receive the support payments for Jessica, but that, pursuant to a domestic relations order requested by Father, Jessica had been receiving the support checks directly -3- J-S30002-19 since 1998. The trial court took the matter under advisement and, following a review of the certified record, issued an order denying Father's petition. See Order, 10/22/18. Upon review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. Rather, it re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3d2b3d6-3897-4aaa-ad5b-c6ed7c4f6bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781956","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10781956 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 180 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781956 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3d2b3d6-3897-4aaa-ad5b-c6ed7c4f6bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781956","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3d2b3d6-3897-4aaa-ad5b-c6ed7c4f6bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781956","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The trial court thus concluded that Husband alone should bear responsibility for the taxes deducted as a result of the early liquidation of the accounts. Id. at 4, 12. The trial court properly considered the tax ramifications in assessing the value of the retirement accounts, and we decline Husband's invitation to overturn its well-supported findings and conclusions. -6- J-A24038-19 Husband further argues that the trial court's refusal to assign some shared responsibility for the taxes he paid is inequitable and fails to account for the fact that Husband's liquidation of the accounts was not voluntary and a result of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3d2b3d6-3897-4aaa-ad5b-c6ed7c4f6bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781956","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: responsible for all assessed taxes[.] 2. The learned trial court erred by utilizing the gross amount of the retirement and/or investment accounts for purposes of equitable distribution when [Husband] while under the specter of unmerited and unwarranted domestic relations orders and ____________________________________________ 2 Husband filed his concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on January 31, 2019. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 15, 2019. -3- J-A24038-19 eventual imprisonment for purported contempt of said Orders was forced to liquidate certain retirement and/or investmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3d2b3d6-3897-4aaa-ad5b-c6ed7c4f6bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10781956-10781956","title":"CourtListener opinion 10781956","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: affidavit on March 26, 2015, stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d). Wife filed a counter-affidavit of non-opposition to divorce on April 14, 2015. Following a hearing, an equitable distribution master issued a report and recommendation on April 11, 2017. Both parties objected to the report and recommendation and requested a hearing de novo. The trial court conducted a de novo hearing on April 4, 2018. At the hearing, counsel agreed that the equitable distribution proceeding would be conducted on a \"case-stated basis\" on documentary exhibits a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e2309c4-4fd7-4550-9b33-366ec68dcca1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10782215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10782215 Extracted case name: J.P. v. J.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3292 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10782215 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e2309c4-4fd7-4550-9b33-366ec68dcca1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10782215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e2309c4-4fd7-4550-9b33-366ec68dcca1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10782215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: motion; and (3) issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of 5/24/19 custody order. ____________________________________________ Rule 1701 refers to Pa.R.C.P. 1930.2, further explained infra, which provides that \"where reconsideration from a domestic relations order has been timely granted, a reconsidered decision or an order directing additional testimony must be entered within 120 days of the entry of the order granting reconsideration or the motion shall be deemed denied.\" Pa.R.A.P. 1701 – Official Note (emphasis added). Moreover, the note states that the \"date from which the appeal period will be measured following"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e2309c4-4fd7-4550-9b33-366ec68dcca1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10782215-10782215","title":"CourtListener opinion 10782215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: taking appeal, trial court must vacate order and grant reconsideration; the mere scheduling of a hearing on the matter is insufficient). Since the order was not vacated and no appeal was filed within 30 days of the entry of the final, appealable order of equitable distribution, this appeal must be quashed as untimely. Id. at 62 (emphasis added). The Karschner Court cited to Schoff for the proposition that the court must vacate the order in addition to granting reconsideration; however, Schoff espoused no such requirement. Schoff states: \"Since reconsideration was not expressly granted within 30 days from the court's September 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41196f03-6479-48f6-bc38-fcbb4bfcb96a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480","title":"CourtListener opinion 10783480","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230789-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"552 P.3d 235","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10783480 Extracted reporter citation: 552 P.3d 235. Docket: 20230789-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10783480 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41196f03-6479-48f6-bc38-fcbb4bfcb96a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480","title":"CourtListener opinion 10783480","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230789-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"552 P.3d 235","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41196f03-6479-48f6-bc38-fcbb4bfcb96a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480","title":"CourtListener opinion 10783480","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230789-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"552 P.3d 235","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he district court should use the \"Woodward formula\" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be applied to the accounts in question. See id. ¶¶ 5–8. The wife accordingly filed both an objection to the QDRO and a rule 60(b) motion, asking the district court to set aside the divorce decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41196f03-6479-48f6-bc38-fcbb4bfcb96a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480","title":"CourtListener opinion 10783480","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230789-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"552 P.3d 235","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hat it could. Our decision in Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 117, 374 P.3d 1043, is perhaps the clearest example. There, the parties in a divorce action had stipulated that the district court should use the \"Woodward formula\" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41196f03-6479-48f6-bc38-fcbb4bfcb96a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10783480-10783480","title":"CourtListener opinion 10783480","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20230789-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"552 P.3d 235","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t court should use the \"Woodward formula\" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be applied to the accounts in question. See id. ¶¶ 5–8. The wife accordingly filed both an objection to the QDRO and a rule 60(b) motion, asking the district court to set aside the divorce decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b560a5-e63a-436a-b6ce-2514ba975615","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10784062","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10784062 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1686 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10784062 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b560a5-e63a-436a-b6ce-2514ba975615","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10784062","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b560a5-e63a-436a-b6ce-2514ba975615","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10784062","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vehicle maintenance? 10. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the direct benefits he received from the personal use of his pension? 11. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the lack of the earning capacity of Mother? Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the net proceeds she received from settlement of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b560a5-e63a-436a-b6ce-2514ba975615","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10784062","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ___________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S20017-24 The record provides the following background. Prior to the instant litigation, Father had been paying Mother $867 per month in child support pursuant to a domestic relations order entered in August 2020. In March 2023, Mother sought an upward modification. She believed that Father experienced a substantial change in circumstances – namely, an increase of his income from two sources: 1) additional income from gas leases; and 2) additional income from his self-owned business. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4352(a). Moreover, Mother sought a m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b560a5-e63a-436a-b6ce-2514ba975615","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10784062-10784062","title":"CourtListener opinion 10784062","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1686 MDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ttorneys' fees and costs. After buying a home and making other real estate investments, approximately $250,000 remained from the settlement. Mother said she cannot receive social security disability because she received too much income in child support and survivor benefits.2 Mother receives survivor benefits, amounting to $2,800 per month, because the father of Mother's other children is deceased. Father exercises partial physical custody – approximately 5 overnights out of 14 during the school year, and 50/50 during the summer months. Upon consideration of the testimony and evidence, the trial court departed from the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10786491 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Charles R. Hook. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 24CA0459 City and County of Denver District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10786491 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d the district court signed it, finding her indigent for purposes of obtaining a state-paid transcript. ¶4 Throughout the marriage — as well as after the decree was entered — Hook worked for the City of Denver and participated in the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (DERP). Relevant to this appeal, as part of the property division, the district court ordered that the pension be divided pursuant to the deferred distribution method authorized in In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525, 531-32 (Colo. 1995). In other words, the marital portion of Hook's eventual benefit would be calculated by dividing the number of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Rhoads Hook, Pro Se *Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 This appeal concerns the efforts of Respondent, Paula S. Rhoads Hook, to secure access to benefits from the pension of Petitioner, Charles R. Hook, which benefits were allotted to her in the permanent orders upon the entry of a decree of legal separation in 2006. While Rhoads Hook has raised the issue at various times over the years, for reasons we will explain, we have jurisdiction in this appeal over only one order: a February 3, 2024, order denying Rhoads"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tioner reaches retirement age, the administrator of that plan will be instructed to divide that benefit 50/50.\" The court neglected to inform the pro se parties about the necessity of submitting to the pension plan administrator a document known as a \"Domestic Relations Order\" (DRO). A DRO is a court order that must be submitted to the plan administrator to effectuate the court-ordered distribution. Denver Rev. Mun. Code § 18-418(b). A DRO must be entered by the court \"either upon the entry of the decree and permanent orders, or within one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter.\" Id. at § 18-418(b)(2). The court file 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e65a0bbd-d8a4-4c2e-a269-caadf863f93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10786491-10786491","title":"CourtListener opinion 10786491","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0459 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s of obtaining a state-paid transcript. ¶4 Throughout the marriage — as well as after the decree was entered — Hook worked for the City of Denver and participated in the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (DERP). Relevant to this appeal, as part of the property division, the district court ordered that the pension be divided pursuant to the deferred distribution method authorized in In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525, 531-32 (Colo. 1995). In other words, the marital portion of Hook's eventual benefit would be calculated by dividing the number of months of the marriage by the total number of months Hook was a pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10787754 Extracted case name: DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION WALKER LOGAN HAGIUS. Extracted reporter citation: 232 P.3d 573. Docket: 86293-6-I/2 Henery. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10787754 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: assets and the party to whom each asset was awarded. The list included Fidelity IRA account #9194, with a balance of $326,981.73, and designated it as property awarded to Hagius, \"with the net present value as of the Date of Separation, to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO].\" 1 The court explained in additional findings that it had previously \"found and ruled orally that whether any transfer payment would be required depended 1 In listing the Fidelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, \"Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73.\" 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dered Henery to make an equalizing transfer payment to Hagius. Nine months later, Hagius filed a motion to enforce the dissolution orders. Hagius sought to require Henery to sign documents necessary to transfer ownership of real property and an individual retirement account (IRA) awarded to him; to disburse the required transfer payment; and to pay accrued interest. After a commissioner granted the motion in part, but denied the request for interest, the superior court revised the commissioner's order and ordered Henery to transfer 100 percent of the value of the IRA account and pay interest on the transfer payment. The su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): idelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, \"Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73.\" 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuation of the two retirement accounts awarded to [Hagius] (Fidelity IRA #9194 and Schwab 401(k)).\" Then, based on the parties' post-trial supplemental submissions, the court adopted final values reflected in a spreadsheet, \"Exhibit A,\" attached to both the court's findings and the decree. The spreadsheet indicates a lower balance for the same Fidelity IRA account, $296,982. The court explained that it had discounted the value of the account by $3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"087d8844-3832-4247-a262-6c40aac697ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10787754-10787754","title":"CourtListener opinion 10787754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"86293-6-I/2 Henery","extracted_reporter_citation":"232 P.3d 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d the party to whom each asset was awarded. The list included Fidelity IRA account #9194, with a balance of $326,981.73, and designated it as property awarded to Hagius, \"with the net present value as of the Date of Separation, to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO].\" 1 The court explained in additional findings that it had previously \"found and ruled orally that whether any transfer payment would be required depended 1 In listing the Fidelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, \"Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73.\" 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10788744 Extracted case name: KANE v. KANE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10788744 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r entry of the decree, Wife and Husband jointly selected a specialized attorney to assist the court by opining on the proper division 2 KANE v. KANE Decision of the Court of the Fidelity Account to implement the court's decree and proposing the necessary qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\") for that purpose. ¶6 Based on the parties' agreement, the court appointed a QDRO attorney, who prepared and filed a report and proposed order with the court on April 5, 2024. Ten days later, on April 15, 2024, and before Wife filed any objections to the report or proposed order, the court adopted the proposed order. The following day, April 16, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (\"ARFLP\") 72.1 authorizes appointment of a professional with special expertise to aid the court with apportioning employment-related assets, including stock options and similar. The rule states: If a court order requires retirement benefits, stock options or other employment related benefits to be divided, the court may appoint an attorney or other professional with the appropriate expertise to recommend a division or to implement the division that the court has ordered. ARFLP 72.1(a). Such professionals may be authorized to divide specified assets and may also exercise discovery powers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: from the court's rulings that it found Wife's evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption. Whitt, 257 Ariz. at 153 ¶ 8. ¶12 Moreover, Arizona law holds that both unvested stock options and RSUs are forms of compensation that are treated analogously to pension plans for property division purposes during dissolution. See Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 97–98 ¶¶ 6–7 (unvested stock options); Goodell v. Goodell, 257 Ariz. 536, 544 ¶ 32 (App. 2024) (RSUs). Thus, unvested stock options and RSUs \"are community property insofar as the rights were acquired during marriage.\" Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 98 ¶ 8 (quoting Johnson v. Johnso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7492d6c1-0d27-42fc-9760-571e92293a54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10788744-10788744","title":"CourtListener opinion 10788744","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): dissolution. ¶3 Before trial, the parties filed a joint pre-trial statement that listed contested issues and their positions on them. The statement cited four main issues: (1) division of a \"Fidelity Account,\" comprised of cash, an executive savings plan, a 401(K), and stock options (vested and unvested); (2) Wife's request for reimbursement for her community expenses; (3) Wife's request for an equalization payment for a gold/silver coin collection Husband had partially liquidated; and (4) Wife's request for an equalization payment for a vehicle to be awarded to Husband. ¶4 Following trial on all issues, the court i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1079021 Extracted reporter citation: 672 S.W.2d 765. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1079021 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: $500 over sixty months. This distribution would require Ms. Kinard to pay federal income tax on the retirement benefits, which would ordinarily not be taxed at retirement. We order that Ms. Kinard's portion of the retirement account be transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. VI. THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD Ms. Kinard also takes issue with the trial judge's decision to award her $1,000 in rehabilitative spousal support for thirty-six months. She insists that she is entitled to permanent spousal support and that the amount of monthly spousal support ordered by the trial judge is far less than her monthly needs. We have determ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t Ms. Kinard asserts should have been classified as her separate property.7 The principal assets in the estate were the Kinards' house, a note payable to the Kinards from Drug Centers, Inc., the stock in Drug Centers, Inc., and Mr. Kinard's Drug Centers, Inc. retirement account. The parties disputed the value of the house, the Drug Centers note, and the Drug Centers stock, but the trial judge did not undertake to resolve this conflicting evidence. The trial judge adopted Mr. Kinard's proposed division of the marital estate with one exception. Instead of awarding Mr. Kinard all of his Drug Centers pension, the trial judge decided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , and the Drug Centers stock, but the trial judge did not undertake to resolve this conflicting evidence. The trial judge adopted Mr. Kinard's proposed division of the marital estate with one exception. Instead of awarding Mr. Kinard all of his Drug Centers pension, the trial judge decided that Ms. Kinard should receive thirty percent of the value of this asset. Recognizing that Mr. Kinard did not desire Ms. Kinard to share in his pension, the trial judge gave him the option of paying Ms. Kinard $500 for sixty months instead. Under this arrangement, and using Mr. Kinard's valuations 7 This property includes (1) rea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a731d012-9eb1-462d-811f-a51e00ae2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079021-1079021","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"672 S.W.2d 765","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sixty months. This distribution would require Ms. Kinard to pay federal income tax on the retirement benefits, which would ordinarily not be taxed at retirement. We order that Ms. Kinard's portion of the retirement account be transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. VI. THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD Ms. Kinard also takes issue with the trial judge's decision to award her $1,000 in rehabilitative spousal support for thirty-six months. She insists that she is entitled to permanent spousal support and that the amount of monthly spousal support ordered by the trial judge is far less than her monthly needs. We have determ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10791304 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of David J. Homoki. Extracted reporter citation: 252 P.3d 1182. Docket: 22CA2069 Arapahoe County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10791304 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: husband. Conversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in \"0521,\" with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven months. ¶6 Wife later filed a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 seeking ame"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e, with the remaining 25% of each account allocated to husband. Conversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in \"0521,\" with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: onversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in \"0521,\" with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven months. ¶6 Wife later filed a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 seeking ame"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95004f0f-df71-43eb-a32c-b9cc1ee1fcf0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10791304-10791304","title":"CourtListener opinion 10791304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22CA2069 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"252 P.3d 1182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nd) and Dahlia M. Homoki (wife), husband appeals the portions of the permanent orders concerning the marital property division and maintenance. Husband also appeals the district court's correction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(a) of a portion of the marital property division. We affirm the judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Background ¶2 The parties married in 2007. (CF p. 22) In 2022, the district court dissolved their marriage and entered permanent orders. The marital estate consisted primarily of the marital home, which was valued at about $1.2 million, and multiple"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10794476 Extracted reporter citation: 144 S.Ct. 1392. Docket: Entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10794476 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection does not apply to any of the following: □ 1. An alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in section 414(p) of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. The interest of any and all alternate payees is exempt from any and all claims of any □□□□□□□□ of the alternate payee. 2. Amounts contributed within one hundred twenty days before a debtor files for bankruptcy. □ 3. The assets of bankruptcy proceedings filed b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the beneficiary. This does not include money contributed to the plan within two years before a debtor files for bankruptcy. B. Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan under section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A or 409 or a deferred compensation plan under section 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ompensation ! A. For the purposes of this section, \"disposable earnings\" means that remaining portion of a debtor's wages, salary compensation for his personal services, including bonuses and commissions, or otherwise, and includes payments pursuant to i a pension or retirement program or deferred compensation plan, after deducting from such earnings those amounts required by ARIZONA'S GENERAL ELECTION GUIDE 105 NOVEMBER 8, 2022 □ GENERAL ELECTION law to be withheld. B. Except as provided in subsection C, the maximum part of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any workweek whteh THAT is subject to proc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96030b-c8f6-4857-97c3-fceca545632e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10794476-10794476","title":"CourtListener opinion 10794476","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"144 S.Ct. 1392","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: of 1986, as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection does not apply to any of the following: □ 1. An alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in section 414(p) of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. The interest of any and all alternate payees is exempt from any and all claims of any □□□□□□□□ of the alternate payee. 2. Amounts contributed within one hundred twenty days before a debtor files for bankruptcy. □ 3. T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"785bcd6b-aa52-463e-8aa7-bc38563b65d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731","title":"CourtListener opinion 10795731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 S.W.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10795731 Extracted case name: MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 807 S.W.2d 476. Docket: 2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10795731 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"785bcd6b-aa52-463e-8aa7-bc38563b65d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731","title":"CourtListener opinion 10795731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 S.W.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"785bcd6b-aa52-463e-8aa7-bc38563b65d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731","title":"CourtListener opinion 10795731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 S.W.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: son Circuit Court that KRS 413.090(1) applies is presumed to be correct. Appellant has not overcome the 2 Though KRS 413.090(1) was raised by the former husband in Satterfield, a panel of this Court did not apply it based on the husband's failure to file a qualified domestic relations order at the time of the decree which equitably estopped him from asserting the statute of limitations defense. -6- presumption that the circuit court properly applied the 15-year statute of limitations to Appellant's motion. Having determined that the 15-year statute of limitation applies to the matter before us, the next question is whether the Jefferson"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"785bcd6b-aa52-463e-8aa7-bc38563b65d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731","title":"CourtListener opinion 10795731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 S.W.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 13.090(1). Appellant cites no case law or statutory law upon which a contrary conclusion may be drawn. Further, and as noted by Appellee, KRS 413.090(1) has been raised in other domestic relations proceedings, including a former spouse's motion to recover pension funds almost 20 years after the decree of dissolution. See Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. App. 2020).2 Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the decision of the trial court, and in order to warrant a reversal, error must affirmatively appear from the record. This presumption is one with which this court begins its exami"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"785bcd6b-aa52-463e-8aa7-bc38563b65d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10795731-10795731","title":"CourtListener opinion 10795731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 S.W.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t Court that KRS 413.090(1) applies is presumed to be correct. Appellant has not overcome the 2 Though KRS 413.090(1) was raised by the former husband in Satterfield, a panel of this Court did not apply it based on the husband's failure to file a qualified domestic relations order at the time of the decree which equitably estopped him from asserting the statute of limitations defense. -6- presumption that the circuit court properly applied the 15-year statute of limitations to Appellant's motion. Having determined that the 15-year statute of limitation applies to the matter before us, the next question is whether the Jefferson"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"076b971a-323e-446e-8cfa-0f44a5630e7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079647","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1079647 Extracted reporter citation: 676 S.W.2d 554. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1079647 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"076b971a-323e-446e-8cfa-0f44a5630e7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079647","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"076b971a-323e-446e-8cfa-0f44a5630e7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079647","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he property issues, I believe. MS. PLEMMONS: It is going to be paid in full as soon as the order is final, so I don't care if he wants to call it alimony, it doesn't matter. That is what it represents. It is a cash payment for her to have now versus a QDRO on the retirement. THE COURT: Well, it might be taxable if you call it alimony, income tax. You can call it a property division and it won't be taxable. There will be a lot of difference to her. MR. HYMAN: Well, we can call it -- that is fine. As noted later in this opinion, the parties also devoted very little attention at trial to the subject of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"076b971a-323e-446e-8cfa-0f44a5630e7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1079647-1079647","title":"CourtListener opinion 1079647","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"676 S.W.2d 554","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: y settlement. Thirty days after entry of the final judgment in this case, Mr. Martin will pay $20,000.00 as a lump sum rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Martin. And with that understanding, that is the only -- THE COURT: Well, really a property -- is it a property division? MS. PLEMMONS: Well -- MR. HYMAN: The personal property has already been divided and the real estate has already been equitably divided, that was sold a year and a half ago, so that takes care of all the property issues, I believe. MS. PLEMMONS: It is going to be paid in full as soon as the order is final, so I don't care if he wants to call it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10799210 Extracted case name: HOWIE v. HOWIE. Extracted reporter citation: 545 P.3d 931. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10799210 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: -9482 (the \"9482 account\"), a Roth IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -6620 (the \"6620 account\"), and a 401(k) account with Husband's employer (the \"Broadcom 401k\"). The superior court ordered that the 9482 account be divided by means of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), with each party \"receiv[ing] one half of the value of the account, including any losses and gains that accrued up to\" the issuance of the Decree. The court did not, however, order that any other retirement account be divided by QDRO, nor 4 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of the Court did the court order that any other account be valued as of the date"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 47, ¶ 13. We do not reweigh evidence on appeal, Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 286, ¶ 31 (App. 2019), and will uphold the superior court's findings of fact absent clear error. Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996). I. Marital Property A. The Retirement Accounts 1. The Court's Ruling Dividing the Retirement Accounts Did Not Explain, and the Record Does Not Support, the Use of Different Valuation Dates and Methods of Division. ¶12 The parties had five retirement accounts during the marriage: an individual retirement account (\"IRA\") with Forge Trust, account number ending in -9911 (the \"9911 account\"), a Roth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ccounts should be divided by QDRO. Husband, by contrast, maintains that none of them should be divided by QDRO, asserting that ordering equalization payments instead will spare the parties the expense of QDRO preparation. ¶20 QDROs are often used to allocate pension and other retirement assets between spouses. A QDRO may not be necessary, however, when dividing certain types of retirement accounts. Welch v. Welch, 886 S.E.2d 921, 924 (N.C. App. 2023) (noting that husband's IRA could be divided by court order without a QDRO). Although a court is not required to order the division of retirement accounts by QDRO, see id.,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ef8879f-21ff-49b8-9666-014635974610","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10799210-10799210","title":"CourtListener opinion 10799210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 P.3d 931","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): oth IRA with Forge Trust, account number ending in -9923\" (the \"9923 account\"), an IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -9482 (the \"9482 account\"), a Roth IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -6620 (the \"6620 account\"), and a 401(k) account with Husband's employer (the \"Broadcom 401k\"). The superior court ordered that the 9482 account be divided by means of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), with each party \"receiv[ing] one half of the value of the account, including any losses and gains that accrued up to\" the issuance of the Decree. The court did not, however, order that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10801081 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Scaletta. Extracted reporter citation: 880 N.W.2d 43. Docket: A-24-155. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10801081 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: WELCH, Judges. ARTERBURN, Judge. INTRODUCTION This appeal arises out of the dissolution of the marriage of Timothy N. Wehland and Sheila R. Wehland. Timothy appeals from an order nunc pro tunc entered by the district court for Saunders County correcting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). For the reasons set forth below, we find that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND The parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court in February 2014. The dissolution decree states, in relevant part: \"[Sheila] shall receive, from [Timothy's] BSNF [sic] Railway 401(k), a marital equali"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: form and content\" by Timothy's counsel, who also signed the document. On July 17, 2023, over 9 years later, Sheila filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc. In her motion, Sheila states that she attempted to withdraw her equalization payment from Timothy's retirement plan, but that her request could not be granted until two deficiencies in the QDRO were revised or clarified. The plan administrator made the following requests: (1) Please modify Section 4 to state the legal name of the plan, which is \"BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement Plan\". (2) In Section 7, please provide a date as of which the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): iction over this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND The parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court in February 2014. The dissolution decree states, in relevant part: \"[Sheila] shall receive, from [Timothy's] BSNF [sic] Railway 401(k), a marital equalization payment in an amount of $50,634,000 [sic] via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the same. [Sheila] shall be responsible for any fees associated with the -1- transfer or disbursement of the equalization payment.\" In 2014, Timothy filed an unopposed motion for an order nunc pro tunc, asking the court to modify the disso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4994776-d019-4ec2-9e5a-4b54e31ef602","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801081-10801081","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801081","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-24-155","extracted_reporter_citation":"880 N.W.2d 43","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ied. The plan administrator made the following requests: (1) Please modify Section 4 to state the legal name of the plan, which is \"BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement Plan\". (2) In Section 7, please provide a date as of which the Alternate Payee's assignment is effective. The parties may consider the date that the Plan establishes and funds a separate account for the Alternate Payee (\"Segregation Date\") as the Assignment Date. Sheila asked the court to enter an order nunc pro tunc to (1) correct the name of the retirement plan to \"BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10801321 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Arugonda. Extracted reporter citation: 108 P.3d 779. Docket: 84401-6-I/2 the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10801321 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 rulings under CR 60(a) as \"substantive decisions\" that amounted to \"reversals of the trial court's orders.\" 7 Fourth, she contends that the trial court exceeded its authority under RAP 7.2(e) when it entered an amended final order of divorce and amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) because the trial court is required to obtain the permission of this court before it may enter orders that affect a decision under review. Finally, she asserts that the trial court entered an amended final order of divorce without properly providing her notice as required by CR 52(c). She 7 Id. at 5 min., 50 sec. - 22 - No. 84401-6-I/23 cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): a 50/50 division of property, and modifying the equalization payment was intended to conform with this intent. 8 Arugonda also notes that the original underlying QDRO simply provided a valuation date, but did not specify the value the court assigned to the 401k account in question, and the July 20 CR 60 order corrected the QDRO by assigning the value that had been determined at trial. Here, the court's ultimate rulings on Arugonda's CR 60(a) motions were proper. The court's stated intent in the final divorce order was a 50/50 division of 8 Id. at 14 min., 45 sec. - 24 - No. 84401-6-I/25 property between"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: under CR 60(a) as \"substantive decisions\" that amounted to \"reversals of the trial court's orders.\" 7 Fourth, she contends that the trial court exceeded its authority under RAP 7.2(e) when it entered an amended final order of divorce and amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) because the trial court is required to obtain the permission of this court before it may enter orders that affect a decision under review. Finally, she asserts that the trial court entered an amended final order of divorce without properly providing her notice as required by CR 52(c). She 7 Id. at 5 min., 50 sec. - 22 - No. 84401-6-I/23 cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fedae99c-922a-4937-a54c-7e3d8cc421bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10801321-10801321","title":"CourtListener opinion 10801321","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84401-6-I/2 the","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 P.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n. 8, 2025), at 17 -3- No. 84401-6-I/4 this court, the parties continued to engage in posttrial litigation, however the trial judge appropriately refrained from entering further orders without the authorization of this court. ANALYSIS I. Transfers of Community Property Funds Ananthula first argues that the trial judge failed to consider various money transfers Arugonda made to family members in India, before and after the divorce petition had been filed, and that these transfers should be counted against Arugonda as waste or concealment of community assets. There are three series of transactions that Ananthula alleg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86246c9c-b9fe-48f4-ba94-a826b6e2f0f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945","title":"CourtListener opinion 10802945","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10802945 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10802945 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86246c9c-b9fe-48f4-ba94-a826b6e2f0f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945","title":"CourtListener opinion 10802945","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86246c9c-b9fe-48f4-ba94-a826b6e2f0f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945","title":"CourtListener opinion 10802945","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed annuity to provide the appellant with a maximum survivor annuity benefit equal to 55% of his basic annuity. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15, 40, 177. They divorced, and, by letter dated June 25, 2004, OPM informed the appellant that it would honor a Domestic Relations Order providing her with a survivor annuity award computed based on 55% of her former spouse's annuity payment as of the date of his retirement. Id. at 37. The appellant began receiving former spouse annuity benefits effective September 1, 2002. Id. at 21. Then, when the appellant's former spouse passed away on September 7, 2020, the appellant began to receive su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86246c9c-b9fe-48f4-ba94-a826b6e2f0f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10802945-10802945","title":"CourtListener opinion 10802945","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: sponse to the administrative judge's acknowledgment order. The appellant was married to a former Federal employee who retired from Federal service effective November 2, 1997, and who elected to receive a reduced annuity to provide the appellant with a maximum survivor annuity benefit equal to 55% of his basic annuity. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15, 40, 177. They divorced, and, by letter dated June 25, 2004, OPM informed the appellant that it would honor a Domestic Relations Order providing her with a survivor annuity award computed based on 55% of her former spouse's annuity payment as of the date of his retirement. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10804406 Extracted reporter citation: 809 F.2d 626. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10804406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iary. DM moves for a declaratory judgment that she, as legal guardian of RM, is entitled to a portion of the life insurance proceeds to provide child support for RM, as mandated by the SGJ. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the SGJ is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") which triggers the exception to the anti-assignment provision of ERISA, elevating Mr. McAlister's child support obligations above MM's designated beneficiary status.1 I. Statutory Background Congress enacted ERISA \"to protect participants in private employee benefit plans.\" In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997). In pursuit of thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: elevat[ing] a plan participant's legal obligations, commonly to a former spouse or children of a previous marriage, over the participant's express wishes to provide for other individuals as designated beneficiaries.\" Trs. Of the Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 425 (9th Cir. 2000). QDROs are any orders relating \"to the provision of child support, alimony, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a plan participant . . . made pursuant to a State domestic relations law.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(B)(3)(ii). To qualify, a QDRO must spec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ipated in a group life insurance policy sponsored by his employer, Ryder Transportation Co., and administered by Securian (the \"Securian Plan\"). The Securian Plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (\"ERISA\"), discussed below. Mr. McAlister's coverage under the Securian Plan began January 1, 2023. MM's Supp. (ECF No. 68) (\"Ex. 9\"). At the time of his death, the proceeds of the policy amounted to $59,000.00. The Securian Plan listed MM as the named beneficiary, and so she submitted a claim to Securian for the proceeds. DM, who was formerly married to Mr. M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4ce9a84-e610-43a2-a573-fa823e3fcf2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804406-10804406","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 F.2d 626","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lan participant . . . made pursuant to a State domestic relations law.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(B)(3)(ii). To qualify, a QDRO must specify: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10804904 Extracted case name: PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL EDWARD BIRDWELL v. TAMMY ANN O'DELL. Extracted reporter citation: 637 S.W.2d 456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10804904 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uld have required the appellant to execute a waiver and release of Mr. Lunsford's retirement plan death benefit, it was not error to divest the appellant of any interest she might have in the benefit and award it to the contingent beneficiaries by way of a QDRO. Id. at *2-3 (emphasis added). Thus, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. Id. In another case one year later, however, this Court declined another invitation to distinguish Bowers on various grounds and instead found it controlling. In Shell v. Dills, No. E2005-02636-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 3193659, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2006), we considered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: es a claim for breach of contract filed by the personal representative of a deceased husband's estate against his former wife, asserting that the former wife breached the parties' marital dissolution agreement by accepting the proceeds of the former husband's retirement account upon his death. The parties' marital dissolution agreement had provided that the retirement account would be \"the sole and absolute property of the Husband\" and that any \"marital interest\" the wife had was divested from her and vested in the husband. However, the wife remained the designated beneficiary of the account when the husband died six years later."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: interest which he or she may have now, or in the future, to any retirement payment or annuity by virtue of his or her being the spouse of the other party, and by virtue of such other party's employment, or by virtue of any other retirement program, plan or pension system which may have included the other party in the past, or which may include such other party now, or which may include the other party in the future. To this end - 18 - both parties declare that it is each's (sic) intent that this provision have the same force and effect as if he or she had signed any waiver forms releasing his or her aforementio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c96c75a-fc65-4168-96f2-b0971a81e69b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10804904-10804904","title":"CourtListener opinion 10804904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 S.W.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: rris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn. 1986). The issue in that case was whether, under the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System statutes, the decedent's first wife, as designated beneficiary of the retirement benefits, was entitled to priority over a non-designated surviving spouse. Id. at 312. The husband became a member of the retirement system in 1947 and designated his then-wife as beneficiary. Id. In 1965, he executed another form again naming his wife as beneficiary. Id. They divorced in 1982, and she remained the designated beneficiary thereafter. Id. However, \"a detailed property settlement agreement had been entered into and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39b50b2-139f-460f-9eba-023d4dedff0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10805735","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10805735 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10805735 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39b50b2-139f-460f-9eba-023d4dedff0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10805735","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39b50b2-139f-460f-9eba-023d4dedff0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10805735","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: its March 13, 2023 reconsideration decision, OPM affirmed its decision to include the appellant's FERS annuity supplement in the computation of his court-ordered apportionment. 0092 AF, Tab 5 at 10. Specifically, OPM explained that, because the April 1, 2014 Domestic Relations Order awarded the appellant's former spouse a \"prorata share\" of the appellant's FERS annuity, OPM was required by 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) to include his FERS annuity supplement in the computation of the court-ordered division, regardless of the July 5, 2022 Amended Order expressly excluding the appellant's FERS annuity supplement from such computation. 3 Id. at 10-11"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39b50b2-139f-460f-9eba-023d4dedff0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10805735-10805735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10805735","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: t no relief would be available to the appellant in the 0092 appeal that had not already been ordered in connection with the 0080 appeal. 0092 ID at 2 n.1 & 3. However, the annuity supplement at issue in this appeal, i.e., the 0092 appeal, is separate from the survivor annuity issue present in the 0080 appeal. Furthermore, the appellant has not received all the relief that he could have received if the matter had been adjudicated and he had prevailed, as his former spouse continues to receive a portion of his annuity supplement in contravention of the Amended Court Order. Thus, we find that this appeal is not moot. OPM improper"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10806016 Docket: of deficiencies. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806016 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o assert a claim against McMaster-Carr for \"improperly releas[ing] $700,000 from [p]laintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to [p]laintiff.\" (Id. p. 2.) Plaintiff claims he was entitled to some of the money in the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)\"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act\"; (2) \"[t]he general allegation of an E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)\"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act\"; (2) \"[t]he general allegation of an ERISA violation in the [original complaint] is ‘so vague [and] ambiguous' that [McMaster-Carr] would not be able to form a meaningful response\"; (3) \"[p]laintiff does not make a clear connection betwee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: . However, plaintiff summarizes his claims as follows: Plaintiff brings this Complaint seeking among other things, relief under 29 U.S.C. 203(d) et seg. in connection with defendants' refusal and failure to hold and protect a QDRO account $'s due the Alternate Payee, violating its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and equitable relief under ERISA, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (\\ERISA\\\"); 29 U.S.C."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09d4c562-73f7-4370-b444-fbcb3972183a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806016-10806016","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of deficiencies","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: claim against McMaster-Carr for \"improperly releas[ing] $700,000 from [p]laintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to [p]laintiff.\" (Id. p. 2.) Plaintiff claims he was entitled to some of the money in the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)\"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act\"; (2) \"[t]he general allegation of an E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60b674f6-11f3-4133-ad30-069e2b4dcaad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806032","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10806032 Extracted reporter citation: 198 F.3d 327. Docket: of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806032 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60b674f6-11f3-4133-ad30-069e2b4dcaad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806032","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60b674f6-11f3-4133-ad30-069e2b4dcaad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806032","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e. Factual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60b674f6-11f3-4133-ad30-069e2b4dcaad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806032","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: those assets and used them to pay personal obligations of her own. As a result, by the time a hearing to address her actions was held in April 2024 before Justice Ariel Chesler of New York State Supreme Court, New York County, only $59,000 remained in her retirement account. At that hearing, the Debtor admitted she had made these unauthorized withdrawals and offered no justification for having done so. At the conclusion of the April 2024 hearing, Justice Chesler entered an order directing 1 A hearing on the three motions before the Court was held on November 14, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the Court asked the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60b674f6-11f3-4133-ad30-069e2b4dcaad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806032-10806032","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806032","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e6da368-df84-4c0e-98a4-9b7391e86a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10806050 Extracted reporter citation: 198 F.3d 327. Docket: of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806050 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e6da368-df84-4c0e-98a4-9b7391e86a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e6da368-df84-4c0e-98a4-9b7391e86a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e. Factual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e6da368-df84-4c0e-98a4-9b7391e86a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: those assets and used them to pay personal obligations of her own. As a result, by the time a hearing to address her actions was held in April 2024 before Justice Ariel Chesler of New York State Supreme Court, New York County, only $59,000 remained in her retirement account. At that hearing, the Debtor admitted she had made these unauthorized withdrawals and offered no justification for having done so. At the conclusion of the April 2024 hearing, Justice Chesler entered an order directing 1 A hearing on the three motions before the Court was held on November 14, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the Court asked the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e6da368-df84-4c0e-98a4-9b7391e86a33","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806050-10806050","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"198 F.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10806735 Extracted reporter citation: 748 A.2d 996. Docket: AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806735 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: intiff shall sign any paperwork necessary to accomplish this order within thirty days after this order becomes final.\" {] 1 would have had similar language if the effective date of the order was not the date of the decree. Instead, the preparation date of the QDRO was not mentioned and no inference should have been drawn that the day it was accomplished would be the date Judge French had in mind. As stated, the QDRO would have been prepared with the date of the judgment as the effective date. Thus the language used first by Judge French and then Judge Nivison is fully consistent with Austin and supports the conclusio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: enneth R. Smart , Jr., ) Defendant. ) - 019 AND FILED RE mM. Page, Clerk This matter is before the Court on the appeal of a single issue remaining from the dissolved marriage of the parties. It emanates from the award to Plaintiff of an equal portion of the pension of the Defendant who is the appellant here. The actual language giving rise to the problem in the original decree (French, J.) is: \"The marital portion of this pension is divided equally between the parties, including cost of living or other increases.\" The issue is succinctly described in the Statement filed pursuant to Rule 76F(c). Defendant seeks to red"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): was for a different reason but the Law Court has now spoken. Its decree mandates a look at the agreement and a threshold determination of whether or not the agreement is ambiguous. \"It is clear that the original decree sought to award Valerie one half of the 401(k) account. The court, however, erred in fixing the date of valuation as the date of the decree, rather than the date of the actual division of the asset.\" Id, at 999. As was the case in Austin, the order here was clear on its face but subsequent events led to questions. It awarded the Plaintiff one half of the pension account. The difference in the effective"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68c86cd0-20a8-4b86-953a-873cbce5b1e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10806735-10806735","title":"CourtListener opinion 10806735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 A.2d 996","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ning from the dissolved marriage of the parties. It emanates from the award to Plaintiff of an equal portion of the pension of the Defendant who is the appellant here. The actual language giving rise to the problem in the original decree (French, J.) is: \"The marital portion of this pension is divided equally between the parties, including cost of living or other increases.\" The issue is succinctly described in the Statement filed pursuant to Rule 76F(c). Defendant seeks to reduce the gross amount to be awarded to Plaintiff by reducing the pension because some of his time was in the - reserves but more because, after his pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1080819 Extracted reporter citation: 897 S.W.2d 702. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1080819 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 for textbooks. 2 Upon motion, the trial court entered an order granting a stay as to the final decree pending the outcome of this appeal with certain exceptions to include Wife's right of immediate access to one-half of Husband's 401K. The court entered a qualified domestic relations order to this effect. novo review upon the record of the trial court's findings of fact, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. As our divorce statutes address only the division of \"marital\" property, it is incumbent upon the trial court to first classify the parties' property as either separate or marital be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tax from the exercise of certain General Mills stock options in the amount of $47,960; awarded Husband marital property totaling approximately $247,000 to include certain General Mills' stock options ($75,593) and restricted stock options ($15,995) and his pension benefit with a present value of $139,423; ordered Wife responsible for marital debt in the amount of $13,346 and Husband responsible in the amount of $12,545; awarded custody of the minor child to Wife; ordered Husband to pay $1,027 per month in child support plus 21% of his annual bonus, less appropriate deductions for income taxes and social security,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Wife her separate property totaling $12,990 and Husband his separate property totaling $3,915; awarded marital property to Wife totaling approximately $326,000 to include the marital residence, the General Mills Voluntary Investment Plan in Husband's name (401K) in the amount of $185,543 and the proceeds less capital gains tax from the exercise of certain General Mills stock options in the amount of $47,960; awarded Husband marital property totaling approximately $247,000 to include certain General Mills' stock options ($75,593) and restricted stock options ($15,995) and his pension benefit with a present value"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22b54d8-034e-457e-a7d6-24647ee765a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080819-1080819","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 S.W.2d 702","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: books. 2 Upon motion, the trial court entered an order granting a stay as to the final decree pending the outcome of this appeal with certain exceptions to include Wife's right of immediate access to one-half of Husband's 401K. The court entered a qualified domestic relations order to this effect. novo review upon the record of the trial court's findings of fact, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. As our divorce statutes address only the division of \"marital\" property, it is incumbent upon the trial court to first classify the parties' property as either separate or marital be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4654ec5-95a4-41d8-9745-f0430941a55c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1080869 Extracted reporter citation: 900 S.W.2d 23. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1080869 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4654ec5-95a4-41d8-9745-f0430941a55c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4654ec5-95a4-41d8-9745-f0430941a55c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iled with the court, Wife listed monthly expenses totaling $2158.961 and the marital debts totaling $13,163.87. In addition, the record indicates that Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses totaled $17,865.2 Subsequently, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to implement its ruling with respect to Husband's profit sharing account with Proctor & Gamble. In the QDRO, the court awarded Husband the first $10,000 in the account and then awarded Wife $43,200, apparently to cover the marital debts as well as her attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The record reflects that Proctor & Gamble is required"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4654ec5-95a4-41d8-9745-f0430941a55c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: imony, with payments beginning on August 1, 1994 and continuing until Husband reaches the age of sixty-two. The trial court also awarded the marital home to Wife, making her responsible for the remaining mortgage payments. The court then ordered Husband's retirement account, credit union account, and other accounts to be divided with Wife as marital property. The trial court further ordered that Husband receive the first $10,000 out of these accounts to compensate him for his equity in the house. The joint marital debts and Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses were also to be paid out of these accounts. The court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4654ec5-95a4-41d8-9745-f0430941a55c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1080869-1080869","title":"CourtListener opinion 1080869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 S.W.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the court, Wife listed monthly expenses totaling $2158.961 and the marital debts totaling $13,163.87. In addition, the record indicates that Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses totaled $17,865.2 Subsequently, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to implement its ruling with respect to Husband's profit sharing account with Proctor & Gamble. In the QDRO, the court awarded Husband the first $10,000 in the account and then awarded Wife $43,200, apparently to cover the marital debts as well as her attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The record reflects that Proctor & Gamble is required"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82417cd2-91be-48bf-b2ea-4fb05d668b8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors for the","extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1081106 Extracted reporter citation: 909 S.W.2d 408. Docket: of factors for the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1081106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82417cd2-91be-48bf-b2ea-4fb05d668b8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors for the","extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82417cd2-91be-48bf-b2ea-4fb05d668b8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors for the","extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits and remand this matter to the trial court so it can craft3 a new order providing Wife with one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits accrued as of the date of the divorce, December 8, 1995. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) of February 7, 1996, is set aside and held for naught. The entry of a new QDRO will await the court's new decree with respect to a 3 For guidance, the trial court's attention is called to our decision in Kendrick v. Kendrick, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App. 1994). 7 division of this asset. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82417cd2-91be-48bf-b2ea-4fb05d668b8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors for the","extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lliam (Husband), age 50, on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct; divided the parties' property, awarded Wife periodic alimony in futuro of $400 per month, increasing to $600 per month after May, 1997; awarded Wife a portion of Husband's non-vested pension benefits; ordered Husband to make the parties' monthly mortgage payment through May, 1997; directed Husband to pay for Wife's health insurance for 36 months through his employer's group health plan pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA health insurance coverage); and granted other relief not germane to this appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82417cd2-91be-48bf-b2ea-4fb05d668b8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081106-1081106","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors for the","extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d of Husband's non-vested pension benefits and remand this matter to the trial court so it can craft3 a new order providing Wife with one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits accrued as of the date of the divorce, December 8, 1995. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) of February 7, 1996, is set aside and held for naught. The entry of a new QDRO will await the court's new decree with respect to a 3 For guidance, the trial court's attention is called to our decision in Kendrick v. Kendrick, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App. 1994). 7 division of this asset. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de0be136-b46b-4ad4-be77-4e3f717d89f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033","title":"CourtListener opinion 10812033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 A.3d 646","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10812033 Extracted case name: COMBINED ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. MELISSA MONTEJANO. Extracted reporter citation: 8 A.3d 646. Docket: BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10812033 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de0be136-b46b-4ad4-be77-4e3f717d89f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033","title":"CourtListener opinion 10812033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 A.3d 646","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de0be136-b46b-4ad4-be77-4e3f717d89f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033","title":"CourtListener opinion 10812033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 A.3d 646","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: call Brooks's employer to make sure that Brooks named Herrick as the beneficiary of Brooks's life insurance policy. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 23; B&C S.M.F. ¶ 20.) Pursuant to the judgment, Brooks's Attorney was required to prepare and present the Court with two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") in order to effectuate the Court's award of 50% of Brooks's Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") and 50% of Brooks's Federal Employee Retirement System Account (\"FERS Account\") to Herrick. (Demers S.M.F. ¶¶ 14-15.) Brooks's attorney failed to do this. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 31.) Instead, Demers prepared the QDROs and mailed them to the Court on August 8, 20"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de0be136-b46b-4ad4-be77-4e3f717d89f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10812033-10812033","title":"CourtListener opinion 10812033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND","extracted_reporter_citation":"8 A.3d 646","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ks's employer to make sure that Brooks named Herrick as the beneficiary of Brooks's life insurance policy. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 23; B&C S.M.F. ¶ 20.) Pursuant to the judgment, Brooks's Attorney was required to prepare and present the Court with two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") in order to effectuate the Court's award of 50% of Brooks's Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") and 50% of Brooks's Federal Employee Retirement System Account (\"FERS Account\") to Herrick. (Demers S.M.F. ¶¶ 14-15.) Brooks's attorney failed to do this. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 31.) Instead, Demers prepared the QDROs and mailed them to the Court on August 8, 20"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10813440 Extracted reporter citation: 121 N.E.3d 564. Docket: 24A-DN-1174. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10813440 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as concur. Robb, Senior Judge. Statement of the Case [1] Alma Wilkerson appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error that challenged the court's ruling on her motion for relief from judgment concerning her receipt of funds through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finding no error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] The marriage of Alma Wilkerson and James Egan, Jr. was dissolved in May 2023. As part of the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Alma a portion of James' National Electrical Annuity Plan (NEAP) and ordered that she receive her share via a QDRO. Once the QDRO was su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of the court's intent is not the language of the court's decree but rather the language of the QDRO drafted by her attorney. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 26 (QDRO, ¶ 5). The decree merely states: The Court awards Wife $95,122.26 of Husband's NEAP retirement account and awards Husband the remaining value of this account. The Court Orders that Wife shall be awarded her share of this account by a qualified domestic relations order. The Court Orders Wife's attorney to submit such a qualified domestic relations order for the Court's consideration. Id. at 19 (Decree of Dissolution, ¶ 13). Indeed, in its order denying"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e court's order in the decree can be accomplished, just not on the timeline that Alma desires. Contra Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (concluding that court did not err when it granted relief from judgment where court's decree ordered distribution of husband's pension under terms not permitted by pension plan and was thus legally impossible to carry out as court had ordered). [11] Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Alma demonstrated a meritorious claim, she is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because she did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that resulted from something other tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd246650-8782-48f6-92ed-31c464053334","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10813440-10813440","title":"CourtListener opinion 10813440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-1174","extracted_reporter_citation":"121 N.E.3d 564","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶¶ 6, 7). In support of this argument, Alma cites to this language: 1 The timing of Alma's motion is not at issue. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 4 of 7 The Alternate Payee may receive Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and Twenty Six Cents ($95,122.26) of the Participant's account immediately. See Appellant's Br. p. 10; see also Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶ 7). [9] However, the language Alma cites as proof of the court's intent is not the language of the court's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10814400 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10814400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ange of beneficiary forms. On June 25, 2008, he submitted the last beneficiary form received by the Board which named his then wife Kelly Reed as his sole beneficiary. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ry. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 Reed passed away on January 11, 2023. At the time of his death, he was fifty-seven years old, had twenty-seven and a half years of service credit in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: neficiary forms. On June 25, 2008, he submitted the last beneficiary form received by the Board which named his then wife Kelly Reed as his sole beneficiary. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a945a3ad-5d29-48a8-a20d-50428f3b280a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10814400-10814400","title":"CourtListener opinion 10814400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: nder the provisions of this article shall be paid as follows: (1) If the contributor was at least fifty years old and if his or her total service as a teacher or nonteaching member was at least twenty-five years at the time of his or her death, then the surviving spouse of the deceased, provided the spouse is designated as the sole primary refund beneficiary, is eligible for an annuity computed as though the deceased were actually a retirant at the time of death and had selected a survivorship option which pays the spouse the same monthly amount which would have been received by the deceased; or (2) If the facts do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f12176ba-a90b-4838-ad9e-c24450d521be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10815766","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10815766 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10815766 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f12176ba-a90b-4838-ad9e-c24450d521be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10815766","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f12176ba-a90b-4838-ad9e-c24450d521be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10815766-10815766","title":"CourtListener opinion 10815766","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hio Feb. 28, 2019) (concluding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented the court from overturning a state court's civil protection order); Dunina v. Hein, No. 3:06-cv-383, 2007 WL 496355, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2007) (declining to overturn a state court's domestic relations order under Rooker-Feldman). More still, Defendants enjoy immunity. Judicial immunity is absolute; it shields judges and other public officers not only from monetary damages but from suit entirely. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982) (explaining judicial immunity exists to protect judges \"from undue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1081611 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1081611 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Account..............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,444.77 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in accordance with the above decree and forwarded to the administrators of the state pension and retirement plans. Upon receipt of the QDRO, however, counsel for the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System forwarded a letter to wife explaining that at least one of the retirement accounts was not subject to division and award pursuant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rties' equity in the marital residence, and 40% of the amounts contained in husband's retirement and pension accounts. Husband is a teacher at the University of Tennessee. As an employee of the State of Tennessee, husband participates in state pension and retirement plans. As of December 1992, the values of his retirement and pension accounts were as follows: CREF Retirement Account..............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,44"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orney for Appellee AFFIRMED ALAN E. HIGHERS, J. CONCUR: DAVID R. FARMER, J. HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J. In this post-divorce proceeding, Kafait U. Malik (\"husband\") appeals from the trial court's judgment ordering him to cash out and/or borrow against his pension and retirement funds in order to satisfy the court's prior distribution of marital property to Susan K. Malik (\"wife\"). In 1993, the Chancery Court of Shelby County entered a Final Decree of Divorce awarding a divorce to both parties on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The final decree awarded wife $750.00 a month for 60 months as rehabilitat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4dad505-0d2e-427d-b1da-becd214a6015","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1081611-1081611","title":"CourtListener opinion 1081611","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,444.77 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in accordance with the above decree and forwarded to the administrators of the state pension and retirement plans. Upon receipt of the QDRO, however, counsel for the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System forwarded a letter to wife explaining that at least one of the retirement accounts was not subject to division and award pursuant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10819704 Docket: 7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10819704 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: el points in his hotel loyalty program accounts. {¶28} Ashley was awarded a marital portion of Patrick's pension, based on the time period from May 26, 2023, when the parties were married, until December 5, 2023, when the divorce action was filed, with a qualified domestic relations order to be prepared to effectuate that order. {¶29} With regard to Patrick's personal checking account, the trial court determined that Ashley was entitled to $11,620.28, being one half of the $23,240.56 1 Following the completion of the divorce hearing but prior to the final judgment entered on August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary order to t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; -24- Case No. 7-24-09 (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Escalade, which was not -6- Case No. 7-24-09 specified at the hearing, Patrick testified that he was \"upside down\" on that vehicle, meaning he owed more on the vehicle than it was worth at that time. {¶13} As to assets, Patrick testified that he has a pension plan through his union, stemming from his job with Miller Brothers. His pension statements reflected $75,202.77 in total lifetime contributions at the end of 2023, and that amount had grown to $80,864.29 by the end of 2024. Patrick also has three hotel loyalty accounts in his name with substantial point balances, resulting from the travel required by h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7d52bfc-3e84-4597-a7cd-473b412ca7ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10819704-10819704","title":"CourtListener opinion 10819704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in his hotel loyalty program accounts. {¶28} Ashley was awarded a marital portion of Patrick's pension, based on the time period from May 26, 2023, when the parties were married, until December 5, 2023, when the divorce action was filed, with a qualified domestic relations order to be prepared to effectuate that order. {¶29} With regard to Patrick's personal checking account, the trial court determined that Ashley was entitled to $11,620.28, being one half of the $23,240.56 1 Following the completion of the divorce hearing but prior to the final judgment entered on August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary order to t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"575cda32-e09d-43a5-b749-1188f81970ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10823518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"707 S.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10823518 Extracted case name: MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DENISE D. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 707 S.W.2d 794. Docket: 2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10823518 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"575cda32-e09d-43a5-b749-1188f81970ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10823518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"707 S.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"575cda32-e09d-43a5-b749-1188f81970ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10823518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"707 S.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: unds in the [401(k)], and all other retirement accounts in his name, free and clear from any and all claim by Karen. There are no other retirement plans. The parties agree to engage Tacasha Thomas to draft and file the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] and they shall equally divide the cost of her services. (R. at 250-51.) Notably, no precise amounts of any of the assets or debts divided are included in the MSA or the Decree of Dissolution.3 Pursuant to the terms of 2 This $125,000 line of credit was obtained during the marriage. (R. at 316.) As of October 8, 2018, the amount of credit accrued on th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"575cda32-e09d-43a5-b749-1188f81970ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10823518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"707 S.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: this matter as an appeal of the October 4, 2023 order denying Karen's requested relief under CR 60.02 only. See Mingey v. Cline Leasing Serv., Inc., The motions concerned the division and assignment of a portion of Appellee's, Rodrigo Rodriguez's (Rodrigo), retirement accounts, a parcel of real property (Brownsboro property), and a debt associated with the Brownsboro property. After careful review of the record on appeal, the briefs filed, and the relevant law, we affirm. BACKGROUND The parties were married on August 15, 1995, and separated in September 2020. Both parties acquired significant marital assets during the m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"575cda32-e09d-43a5-b749-1188f81970ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10823518-10823518","title":"CourtListener opinion 10823518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"707 S.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . Both parties acquired significant marital assets during the marriage. Rodrigo filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 27, 2021. At the time he filed his Preliminary Verified Disclosure Statement (PVDS) in June 2021, Rodrigo had a Fidelity 401(k) (the 401(k)) containing approximately $272,000. (Record, (\"R\") at 32.) The parties attended mediation on April 18, 2023, and the result was the April 28, 2023 MSA which was accepted by the court and incorporated into the Decree of Dissolution entered on May 1, 2023. (R. at 248, 259.) At the core of the dispute in this case are the following terms of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10824232 Extracted reporter citation: 773 N.E.2d 516. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10824232 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s in the State Teacher's Retirement System. Further, the parties acknowledge that due to the applicable provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, that the parties are unable to divide the Husband's State Teachers Retirement Benefits pursuant to an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or another appropriate Court Order. Further, the parties acknowledge that as of June 30, 1997, the Husband is entitled to receive a monthly benefit from the State Teacher's Retirement System in the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty–Five Dollars ($3,535.00). The Wife shall be entitled to receive from the Husband's benefits from the State Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e to designate her a 25 percent beneficiary of his PERS survivor benefits. Appellant asserted that the parties' separation agreement and dissolution decree ordered the division of PERS benefits as follows: The parties hereto are aware of the pension and retirement benefits available to Robert Duane Plymale and the disparity between such benefits and the lack of retirement benefits available to Sally Ann Plymale and hereby agree that at the time Robert Duane Plymale commences receipt of such benefits, Sally Ann Plymale shall be deemed the vested owner of twenty-five percent (25%) of such benefits and shall be paid a sum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: quired Plymale to designate her a 25 percent beneficiary of his PERS survivor benefits. Appellant asserted that the parties' separation agreement and dissolution decree ordered the division of PERS benefits as follows: The parties hereto are aware of the pension and retirement benefits available to Robert Duane Plymale and the disparity between such benefits and the lack of retirement benefits available to Sally Ann Plymale and hereby agree that at the time Robert Duane Plymale commences receipt of such benefits, Sally Ann Plymale shall be deemed the vested owner of twenty-five percent (25%) of such benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f758f84-a335-48ab-9bb0-810ea8fa83a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10824232-10824232","title":"CourtListener opinion 10824232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"773 N.E.2d 516","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ree and separation agreement were filed, Ohio law was amended to allow courts to issue DOPOs that can divide public retirement benefits. As was noted in Romans[ v. Romans, 2006-Ohio-6554 (9th Dist.)], DOPOs are limited to retirement benefits, because the alternate payee's rights to benefits terminate under R.C. 3105.86 upon the death of the pension participant or the alternate payee, whichever occurs first. 2006-Ohio-6554, at ¶ 13. Bargained-for survivorship benefits may be received, however, not through direct payments by the public retirement fund, but through a constructive trust equitably imposed on property in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10826127 Extracted reporter citation: 980 F.3d 231. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10826127 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: death benefit will automatically be revoked, and the spouse shall cease to be eligible to receive a death benefit in case of any subsequent death of the Participant, if and when that spouse is divorced, except to the extent ordered to the contrary by a qualified domestic relations order. Verizon Pension Plan 71. Nick elected his then-wife, Parthena, as his primary beneficiary on January 29, 2001. They were divorced on February 14, 2017, prior to Nick's death. And Nick never re-designated Parthena—or anyone else—as beneficiary following the divorce. Therefore, by way of section 7.3(c), unless there existed a qualified domestic relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge: In this interpleader action, plaintiff The Verizon Employee Benefits Committee seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying the interest that each defendant has in the death benefit payment of Nick Nikolaros's pension plan. The three claimant-defendants are Nick Nikolaros's estate, represented by its personal representative Athina Nikolaros; Nick's ex-wife, Parthena Nikolaros; and Nick's sister, Georgia Nikolaros. In cross-motions for summary judgment, Georgia seeks a declaration that the death benefit is payable solely to her, while Athina and Parthena argue that it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: t party's favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). DISCUSSION This interpleader action arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. See Metro. Life Ins. v. Bigelow, 283 F.3d 436, 439–40 (2d Cir 2002). This Court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. at 440. I. Georgia Nikolaros Is Not a Valid Beneficiary. Georgia Nikolaros's motion for summary judgme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7f5e9ae-bc8c-4c6e-ad2f-d403242a1ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10826127-10826127","title":"CourtListener opinion 10826127","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 F.3d 231","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 7.3(c), unless there existed a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") stating otherwise, the divorce automatically revoked Nick's election of Parthena as his primary beneficiary for his death benefit. A QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). An \"alternate payee\" is \"any spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to recei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10829349 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MELISSA and RYAN HOSMAN. MELISSA SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 21 Cal.3d 779. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10829349 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , with the court reserving the issue. According to the minute order of the November 14, 2018 hearing, the matter was continued to February 11, 2019, as the parties, who were present at the hearing with their attorneys, requested time to finalize a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The minute order states the parties agreed Hosman's disability benefits through CalPERS are his sole and separate property. Hosman's attorney prepared findings and order after hearing, which the family court signed and filed on December 14, 2018 (the 2018 order). The 2018 order states: \"[Hosman]'s Disability Benefits. The parties agree and the Cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Catherine E. Bennett and Patricia R. Di Pasquale for Respondent. -ooOoo- Melissa Smith appeals the family court's August 7, 2023 order denying her request to set aside a December 2018 order that designated her ex-husband Ryan Hosman's industrial disability retirement benefits as his separate property. On August 18, 2023, Smith filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 order, which the family court denied on November 1, 2023. She did not file a notice of appeal from the August 7, 2023 order until November 9, 2023, more than 60 days after she was served with notice of entry of the order. We reject Hosman's argume"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: enefits. A judgment of dissolution was entered on July 23, 2013 (the 2013 judgment). The 2013 judgment contained a clause which stated that Smith \"shall receive her one half community interest in [Hosman]'s retir[e]ment with the State of California (CALPERS, Pension, 401k's, medical retir[e]ment, disability retirement etc), with the court retaining jurisdiction over this matter.\" The 2018 Order Confirming Hosman's Disability Benefits as his Separate Property In March 2018, Smith gave the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) notice of a community property claim in Hosman's disability benefits and pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b83d2f4-e1c0-41b9-a40e-a113bf315752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829349-10829349","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829349","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"21 Cal.3d 779","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): A judgment of dissolution was entered on July 23, 2013 (the 2013 judgment). The 2013 judgment contained a clause which stated that Smith \"shall receive her one half community interest in [Hosman]'s retir[e]ment with the State of California (CALPERS, Pension, 401k's, medical retir[e]ment, disability retirement etc), with the court retaining jurisdiction over this matter.\" The 2018 Order Confirming Hosman's Disability Benefits as his Separate Property In March 2018, Smith gave the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) notice of a community property claim in Hosman's disability benefits and proposed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10829443 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: notes from the judge who presided over the divorce. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10829443 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ustice Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 19, 2025 AFFIRMED Appellant Curtis Tyrone Williams (\"Curtis\") appeals the trial court's post-divorce qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") awarding his former spouse, appellee Larmetrice Nunnally- Williams (\"Larmetrice\"), one-half of his military retirement that was earned until the date of divorce. On appeal, Curtis argues the trial court erroneously awarded Larmetrice a portion of the retirement benefits that were his separate property because it was earned prior to the marriage. On th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: DRO\") awarding his former spouse, appellee Larmetrice Nunnally- Williams (\"Larmetrice\"), one-half of his military retirement that was earned until the date of divorce. On appeal, Curtis argues the trial court erroneously awarded Larmetrice a portion of the retirement benefits that were his separate property because it was earned prior to the marriage. On this record, we affirm. 04-23-00110-CV BACKGROUND According to Curtis, he served in the military prior to his marriage to Larmetrice and continued to serve after they were divorced. Although the record does not contain the final divorce decree, the record reflects Curti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: illiams's sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued [or] unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, thrift-saving plan, retirement plan Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee saving plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits exi[s]ting by reason of Curtis T. Williams's employment [with the] United States Army. As of March 19, 2017 that portion being Eight [T]housand Four Hundred Seventy dollars and Fifty-Seven cents ($8,470.57) of the related benef"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f0acb2b-94ca-4cba-aad8-f1785f691dc6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10829443-10829443","title":"CourtListener opinion 10829443","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"notes from the judge who presided over the divorce","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ed, accrued [or] unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, thrift-saving plan, retirement plan Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee saving plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits exi[s]ting by reason of Curtis T. Williams's employment [with the] United States Army. As of March 19, 2017 that portion being Eight [T]housand Four Hundred Seventy dollars and Fifty-Seven cents ($8,470.57) of the related benefits earned during the marriage. 1 Beca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f5906c4-87cd-45ff-84fc-ec70a10e7746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10830111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10830111 Extracted case name: SCOTT v. SCOTT. Docket: 1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10830111 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f5906c4-87cd-45ff-84fc-ec70a10e7746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10830111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f5906c4-87cd-45ff-84fc-ec70a10e7746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10830111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ied in May 1990. Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage in May 1999. The parties reached a settlement agreement (the \"Agreement\") which, among other things, awarded Wife one-half of Husband's public service employment retirement account \"pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" to be entered later. The Agreement stated it was expressly incorporated in the consent decree, but not merged, and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order (\"DRO\") enforcing her one-half interest in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f5906c4-87cd-45ff-84fc-ec70a10e7746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10830111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order (\"DRO\") enforcing her one-half interest in Husband's retirement account. Wife noted she first presented a draft DRO to Husband requesting stipulated entry, but he failed to respond, which led to her petition. Husband moved to dismiss, which the court granted, noting it \"lacks jurisdiction to take action as requested by [Wife]\" because the DRO was part of the separate settlement agreement the parties reached, and was therefore n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f5906c4-87cd-45ff-84fc-ec70a10e7746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10830111-10830111","title":"CourtListener opinion 10830111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1990. Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage in May 1999. The parties reached a settlement agreement (the \"Agreement\") which, among other things, awarded Wife one-half of Husband's public service employment retirement account \"pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" to be entered later. The Agreement stated it was expressly incorporated in the consent decree, but not merged, and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order (\"DRO\") enforcing her one-half interest in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505b166e-1d62-4e10-935a-199d50e27737","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125","title":"CourtListener opinion 10831125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10831125 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10831125 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505b166e-1d62-4e10-935a-199d50e27737","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125","title":"CourtListener opinion 10831125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505b166e-1d62-4e10-935a-199d50e27737","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125","title":"CourtListener opinion 10831125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ach, Florida. He has a city pension benefit the terms of which have not been provided to the Court. The court would equally divide this pension; however, the Court has no information as to the term of the pension. The Court retains jurisdiction to enter a QDRO or other documentation dividing this pension as and when payable. E. The court reserves jurisdiction to modify and enforce this final judgment. (Emphasis added). Complicating this matter on appeal is the fact no transcript of the final dissolution hearing is contained in the record. In cases where a transcript is unavailable, Florida Rule of Appellat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505b166e-1d62-4e10-935a-199d50e27737","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125","title":"CourtListener opinion 10831125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , C.J. Appellant Donald Lloyd Edman (\"Husband\") timely appeals the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which granted permanent alimony to appellee Carlene Edman (\"Wife\") and retained jurisdiction for the trial court to address Husband's pension. On appeal, Husband claims: (1) the trial court's permanent alimony award was contrary to law because section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2023), ended permanent alimony awards; (2) the trial court failed to make specific factual findings pursuant to section 61.08 as to Wife's need and Husband's ability to pay alimony; and (3) the trial court improperly awarded"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505b166e-1d62-4e10-935a-199d50e27737","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10831125-10831125","title":"CourtListener opinion 10831125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d the lack of transcripts from those hearings, the circuit court, in its discretion, may: (1) take additional evidence and conduct further proceedings to enable the circuit court to make the statutorily required findings; and (2) amend and/or update its prior equitable distribution determination in light of any additional evidence presented.\"). Husband also argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife 50% of Husband's retirement pension with the permanent alimony award because the trial court could not \"double-dip and award both.\" Husband asserts that alimony should terminate when he retires if Wife is to receive 50% of Husban"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8261a167-c6b0-470c-bd97-7608ef2fc49a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355","title":"CourtListener opinion 10833355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10833355 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10833355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8261a167-c6b0-470c-bd97-7608ef2fc49a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355","title":"CourtListener opinion 10833355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8261a167-c6b0-470c-bd97-7608ef2fc49a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355","title":"CourtListener opinion 10833355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1.4 by failing to respond in a timely manner to the client's communications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, \"A law"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8261a167-c6b0-470c-bd97-7608ef2fc49a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355","title":"CourtListener opinion 10833355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): munications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, \"A lawyer shall . . . keep the client reason"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8261a167-c6b0-470c-bd97-7608ef2fc49a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10833355-10833355","title":"CourtListener opinion 10833355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iling to respond in a timely manner to the client's communications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, \"A law"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6f3141f-a0fc-48ed-b0a7-653216982227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674","title":"CourtListener opinion 10834674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"495 S.W.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10834674 Extracted case name: MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE GEORGE DAVIS. Extracted reporter citation: 495 S.W.2d 175. Docket: 2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10834674 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6f3141f-a0fc-48ed-b0a7-653216982227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674","title":"CourtListener opinion 10834674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"495 S.W.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6f3141f-a0fc-48ed-b0a7-653216982227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674","title":"CourtListener opinion 10834674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"495 S.W.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: atterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Ky. App. 2020) (finding the wife's claim 20 years after final dissolution was not unreasonably delayed, because she \"had no reason to inquire into\" her ex-husband's failure to execute his duty, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, \"until such time as\" that duty could be executed); see also Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. App. 2009) (after interpretation issues pertaining to the court's division of retirement benefits came into question, this Court permitted the husband to challenge the language of -11- the decree approximately six years after it reached finality be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6f3141f-a0fc-48ed-b0a7-653216982227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674","title":"CourtListener opinion 10834674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"495 S.W.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sked for that payment to be reinstated. She argued that in 2008 he admitted she was entitled to one-half of that benefit, and he should be held to that original acknowledgement. Conversely, Clinton argued that any remaining interest she had in his military retirement benefits was offset by the marital assets she improperly dissipated after the dissolution. He requested the court deny Mi Hui's request, or in the alternative, proceed with a full distribution of marital assets, including an accounting of funds Mi Hui dissipated after the dissolution, and an award for child support.2 2 Clinton and Mi Hui had two children duri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6f3141f-a0fc-48ed-b0a7-653216982227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10834674-10834674","title":"CourtListener opinion 10834674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"495 S.W.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Ky. App. 2020) (finding the wife's claim 20 years after final dissolution was not unreasonably delayed, because she \"had no reason to inquire into\" her ex-husband's failure to execute his duty, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, \"until such time as\" that duty could be executed); see also Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. App. 2009) (after interpretation issues pertaining to the court's division of retirement benefits came into question, this Court permitted the husband to challenge the language of -11- the decree approximately six years after it reached finality be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10839571 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of ROD ALAN and HUB ALAN FREEMAN. ROD ALAN FREEMAN. Extracted reporter citation: 103 Cal.App.4th 1409. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10839571 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mined the community's interest in this pension at the time it awarded spousal support. Specifically, it states that the parties had stipulated that the community's interest in \"all retirement accounts\" would be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the accounts subject to the QDRO, and it appointed a third party to prepare the QDRO. 7 may fix spousal support at an amount greater than, equal to or less than what the supported spouse may require to maintain the marital standard of living, in order to achieve a just and reasonable result under t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion. Rather, the statement of decision indicates the family court had not determined the community's interest in this pension at the time it awarded spousal support. Specifically, it states that the parties had stipulated that the community's interest in \"all retirement accounts\" would be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the accounts subject to the QDRO, and it appointed a third party to prepare the QDRO. 7 may fix spousal support at an amount greater than, equal to or less than what the supported spouse may require to maintain the marital standard of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 0. Hub arrives at this $9,300 figure by adding together (1) $5,400, which is the amount the family court found Rod was able to earn; (2) $1,000, which is Rod's monthly income from dividends; (3) $800, which is Rod's purported community share of Hub's military pension; and (4) $2,100, which is the amount of spousal support.5 Hub argues that spousal support should be reduced, or eliminated, so that Rod's total monthly income will be closer to half the marital standard of living (i.e., $6,190.50). We disagree. To begin, Hub cites no authority for his assertion that Rod is only entitled to half the marital standard of livi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61f3f061-eb07-411f-8183-38dca373f4f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10839571-10839571","title":"CourtListener opinion 10839571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"103 Cal.App.4th 1409","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e final day of trial. We are unpersuaded by either argument. Hub's remaining contention appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the Moore/Marsden rule.2 Under this rule, \"the community acquires a pro tanto interest\" in a party's separate property \"[w]hen community property is used to reduce the principal balance of a mortgage on\" the property. (Bono v. Clark (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1421–1422.) Once the community's pro tanto percentage interest is calculated, it is multiplied by the total value of the property to determine the dollar value of the community's interest. We publish this case to clarify that the community's p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10842842 Extracted case name: JJ. YOLANDA M. CURRIER v. JAMES M. CURRIER LAWRENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 227 A.3d 159. Docket: number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10842842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: James should be found in contempt for (1) failing to provide an accounting of his stocks or make any payments toward the stock division awarded to Yolanda as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment and (2) failing to file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment to effectuate the division of James's 401(k) account. [¶5] The court (Malia, J.) held a hearing on the fifth motion for contempt on March 15, 2024. At this hearing, Yolanda and James both testified, and the court admitted one exhibit in evidence. [¶6] After the hearing, the cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): and not in contempt in other respects. Because we conclude that the court erred in (1) finding that Yolanda had not met her burden to show contempt regarding the division of stock in James's employee stock plan and (2) valuing Yolanda's portion of James's 401(k) account, we vacate the court's judgment. I. BACKGROUND [¶2] The parties, Yolanda1 and James, were married on May 26, 2000. On 1 Because the parties share the same surname, we refer to them by their first names. 2 September 5, 2017, Yolanda filed a complaint for divorce. After multiple mediation sessions, hearings, and settlement conferences, the co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ld be found in contempt for (1) failing to provide an accounting of his stocks or make any payments toward the stock division awarded to Yolanda as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment and (2) failing to file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment to effectuate the division of James's 401(k) account. [¶5] The court (Malia, J.) held a hearing on the fifth motion for contempt on March 15, 2024. At this hearing, Yolanda and James both testified, and the court admitted one exhibit in evidence. [¶6] After the hearing, the cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b43e088-e7e9-4573-88d3-a1626641b974","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10842842-10842842","title":"CourtListener opinion 10842842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY","extracted_reporter_citation":"227 A.3d 159","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: [¶3] On July 2, 2019, the court entered a judgment of divorce. The court awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities to Yolanda as to the parties' three children and made other determinations regarding, inter alia, child support obligations, marital property division, and spousal support.2 As part of the marital property division, the court awarded Yolanda one-half the value of James's employee stock plan holdings through May 24, 2019, exclusive of any reduction in value due to sales of stock that took place during the pendency of the divorce, and one-half the value of the marital portion of James's retirement bene"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10843388 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10843388 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oenix, Arizona, for Appellant. Alyssa Vinson and A.J. Rohe, III, of Rohe Law, Tavares, for Appellee. April 11, 2025 EDWARDS, C.J. Karl Tucker (\"Former Husband\"), appeals the trial court's Order On Former Wife's (Jammie Tucker), Amended Motion To Correct Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"Corrective Order\"). The Corrective Order, rendered in 2024, relied upon Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(a), and purported to correct a clerical mistake in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in 2021. Former Husband argues that the Corrective Order did not address a clerical mistake but instead made a substantive change to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: As an oversimplified explanation of DROP, that means although the employee is still employed, not yet actually retired, FRS begins making pension payments into an account designated for the employee. Payments to an employee's designated DROP account are \"the retirement benefits that would have been paid [monthly] had the employee retired,\" instead of continuing to work. Ganzel v. Ganzel, 770 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Depending upon what the employee has elected, those monthly pension payments can be made into the participant's DROP account for several years while the employee continues to work and draw regular pay. T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reement (\"MSA\"), dated March 19, 2021, that settled all issues between them.1 In accordance with the MSA, the final judgment provided in part that Former Wife would receive one- half of the marital portion of Former Husband's Florida Retirement System (\"FRS\") Pension Plan benefits which were to be transferred to her via a QDRO. The final judgment directed Former Husband to retain someone, at his expense, to prepare the QDRO. Former Husband, who was pro se up to this point in the dissolution, retained attorney Raymond Dietrich to carry out that task. Former Wife was represented by her current law firm during the dissolut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d39f8e6-be70-4e2a-8def-ee3f1fff6326","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10843388-10843388","title":"CourtListener opinion 10843388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: zona, for Appellant. Alyssa Vinson and A.J. Rohe, III, of Rohe Law, Tavares, for Appellee. April 11, 2025 EDWARDS, C.J. Karl Tucker (\"Former Husband\"), appeals the trial court's Order On Former Wife's (Jammie Tucker), Amended Motion To Correct Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"Corrective Order\"). The Corrective Order, rendered in 2024, relied upon Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(a), and purported to correct a clerical mistake in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in 2021. Former Husband argues that the Corrective Order did not address a clerical mistake but instead made a substantive change to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0988a8d-5727-4370-8563-e2f4986ca74a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884","title":"CourtListener opinion 10844884","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"959 S.W.2d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10844884 Extracted reporter citation: 959 S.W.2d 615. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10844884 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0988a8d-5727-4370-8563-e2f4986ca74a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884","title":"CourtListener opinion 10844884","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"959 S.W.2d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0988a8d-5727-4370-8563-e2f4986ca74a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884","title":"CourtListener opinion 10844884","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"959 S.W.2d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: YS COUNTY NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's \"Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" and \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0988a8d-5727-4370-8563-e2f4986ca74a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10844884-10844884","title":"CourtListener opinion 10844884","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"959 S.W.2d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's \"Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" and \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10846358 Extracted reporter citation: 337 A.2d 559. Docket: 12 at 15-22. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10846358 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: amount of the Participant's Accumulated Contributions, there shall be no additional amount due or payable hereunder. (Ord. 7632. Adopted 08-21-2003.) Id. at 127a-28a (emphasis added). Section 169.07(h) of the Plan governs distributions of benefits under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and provides that \"[a]ll rights and benefits, including elections, provided to a Participant in this Plan shall be subject to the rights afforded to an ‘alternate payee' pursuant to a domestic relations order as provided by applicable state law.\" R.R. at 131a (emphasis added). In addition, Section 169.09 of the Plan governs administration of the Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n does not contain a definition of spouse or surviving spouse. Id. Section 169.06 of the Plan governs death benefits and provides, in relevant part: (b) Survivor Benefit. If a Participant here under who is receiving a [normal, late, disability, or deferred retirement benefit under the Plan] or is eligible to receive a [normal, late, or deferred retirement benefit under the Plan] shall die, or if a Participant shall be killed in the line of duty of Employment, and be survived by a spouse or any children under the age of eighteen (18), there shall be a Survivor Benefit payable hereunder. The Survivor Benefit shall be paid to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Bonnie Williams : CASES CONSOLIDATED : v. : : City of New Castle and Police : Pension Board for the City of : New Castle, : Appellants : No. 1088 C.D. 2023 Laura Crawford : : v. : : City of New Castle and Police : Pension Board for the City of : New Castle, : No. 1089 C.D. 2023 Appellants : Argued: February 5, 2025 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5d4371a-d3b9-4175-be8e-04dd781b835e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10846358-10846358","title":"CourtListener opinion 10846358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12 at 15-22. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"337 A.2d 559","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 169.07(h) of the Plan governs distributions of benefits under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and provides that \"[a]ll rights and benefits, including elections, provided to a Participant in this Plan shall be subject to the rights afforded to an ‘alternate payee' pursuant to a domestic relations order as provided by applicable state law.\" R.R. at 131a (emphasis added). In addition, Section 169.09 of the Plan governs administration of the Plan and provides as follows: (a) Plan Administrator. The [Board] shall be the Plan Administrator and shall have the power and authority to do all acts and to execute, acknowle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10847895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Butler. Extracted reporter citation: 28 Cal.3d 366. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10847895 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in the sale of the home, neither side presented evidence or argument regarding th[o]se consequences at trial.\" It similarly found that there was no evidence presented on the retirement accounts and ordered that the parties retain a qualified expert to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and begin working with the expert \"within 45 days of receipt\" of the statement of decision. The court ordered that the \"remaining proceeds from the sale of the home in the amount of approximately $450,568.43 are to be divided equally between the parties after accounting for the $10,000.00 in sanctions previously ordered to be paid out of [Leslie]'s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nce and the distribution of retirement pension accounts. On appeal, Leslie challenges the trial court's rulings on the equal division of proceeds from the sale of the residence and contends that the court erred in failing to resolve the capital gains tax and retirement account disputes. She asserts that despite the outstanding retirement account and tax issues, the trial court's decision regarding the disposition of proceeds from the sale is final and may be treated as an appealable order. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Leslie has appealed from a nonappealable order and exercise our discretion to treat the app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r reimbursement. The 1 As the parties share a last name, for clarity we refer to them by first name. court noted but made no findings on Leslie's claims regarding the payment of taxes related to the sale of the residence and the distribution of retirement pension accounts. On appeal, Leslie challenges the trial court's rulings on the equal division of proceeds from the sale of the residence and contends that the court erred in failing to resolve the capital gains tax and retirement account disputes. She asserts that despite the outstanding retirement account and tax issues, the trial court's decision regarding the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9c5f1e3-138e-42d1-8ff3-a90e1923858a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10847895-10847895","title":"CourtListener opinion 10847895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"28 Cal.3d 366","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e of the home, neither side presented evidence or argument regarding th[o]se consequences at trial.\" It similarly found that there was no evidence presented on the retirement accounts and ordered that the parties retain a qualified expert to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and begin working with the expert \"within 45 days of receipt\" of the statement of decision. The court ordered that the \"remaining proceeds from the sale of the home in the amount of approximately $450,568.43 are to be divided equally between the parties after accounting for the $10,000.00 in sanctions previously ordered to be paid out of [Leslie]'s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10851057 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CHRISTINA DeBENEDETTI and MORGAN ENSBURG. Extracted reporter citation: 106 Cal.App.4th 754. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10851057 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a \" ‘domestic relations order' \" relating \"to the provision of . . . marital property rights\" that creates \"the existence of an alternate [retirement plan] payee.\" (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B).) For our purposes an ex-spouse is generally the alternate payee. In this case, the trial judge 1 assigned four of Morgan's 2 E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Goldsmith and Victor M. Torres, Judges. Affirmed. Bickford Blado & Botros and Andrew J. Botros for Appellant. Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Gregory R. Ellis and Kelly A. Woodruff; Dick & Wagner and Stephen J. Wagner for Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a \" ‘domestic relati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a \" ‘domestic relations order' \" relating \"to the provision of . . . marital property rights\" that creates \"the existence of an alternate [retirement plan] payee.\" (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B).) For our purposes an ex-spouse is generally the alternate payee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7cbf46d3-aace-46be-aad9-22a4c769f59c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10851057-10851057","title":"CourtListener opinion 10851057","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"106 Cal.App.4th 754","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Group, Gregory R. Ellis and Kelly A. Woodruff; Dick & Wagner and Stephen J. Wagner for Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a \" ‘domestic relations order' \" relating \"to the provision of . . . marital property rights\" that creates \"the existence of an alternate [retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1085120 Extracted case name: SIDERS v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 407 F.3d 1309. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1085120 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ore they divorced in 1993. That year, a Flori- da state court issued a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was \"entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension.\" In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was \"hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United Sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ing that Ms. Siders was \"hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United States Post Office Pension Plan.\" In November 1996, OPM wrote to Ms. Siders regard- ing her \"application for a portion of [her] former spouse's Federal retirement benefit.\" OPM explained that no benefits were payable at that time because Mr. Siders had \"not yet retired or applied for a refund of retirement contributions.\" OPM also noted that there was \"no refer- ence to a survivor annuity award in th[e] court order,\" which meant that, as matters then stood, Ms. Siders was \"ineligible for a court awarded survivor benefit.\" OP"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was \"entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension.\" In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was \"hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United States Post Office Pension Plan.\" In November 1996, OPM wrote to Ms. Siders regard- ing her \"application for a portion of [her]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"498aa846-3d70-487a-8888-68d6c09d54ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1085120-1085120","title":"CourtListener opinion 1085120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"407 F.3d 1309","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ivorced in 1993. That year, a Flori- da state court issued a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was \"entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension.\" In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was \"hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United Sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1086764 Extracted reporter citation: 78 S.W.3d 291. Docket: M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1086764 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as well as [Husband's] abilities to meet those needs, the Court, as alimony in solido, awards one half (50%) of [Husband's] Saturn and GM pension benefits as January 1, 2010 to [Wife]. Counsel for [Wife] shall be responsible for preparing the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Orders to further effectuate the division of [Husband's] Saturn/GM pension benefits. The trial court went on to state: \"Until [Wife] begins receiving payments pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order(s), [Husband] shall continue to send [Wife] the sum of $699.52 each month . . . and [Husband] shall take no action which might affect the right o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s no evidence offered at trial by either party to establish the portion of [Husband's] pension benefits were attributable to his premarital earnings, i.e., his separate property, which was [Husband's] burden of proof, nor to show the portion of [Husband's] retirement benefits which are attributable to his post- marital earnings, i.e., the partial portion, which was the burden of both parties. For these reasons, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to award a portion of [Husband's] pension benefits to [Wife] as part of the division of the marital estate. However, based upon all of the factors set forth in Tennessee C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and contends this was error for he expressly refused to be liable for this debt. The court also awarded a judgment against Husband in favor of Wife for $101,714 of expenses she incurred to maintain the marital residence. Wife was awarded one half of Husband's pension and $75,000 of her attorney's fees as alimony in solido, and sixty months of rehabilitative alimony, at $1,250 per month. Husband contends that all of these awards were error. Husband, however, provided no transcript of the evidence or statement of the evidence; therefore, there is no evidence before this court upon which to find that the evidence preponder"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"599f7bfa-d8af-49dd-a19b-757410bb06e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1086764-1086764","title":"CourtListener opinion 1086764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"78 S.W.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s [Husband's] abilities to meet those needs, the Court, as alimony in solido, awards one half (50%) of [Husband's] Saturn and GM pension benefits as January 1, 2010 to [Wife]. Counsel for [Wife] shall be responsible for preparing the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Orders to further effectuate the division of [Husband's] Saturn/GM pension benefits. The trial court went on to state: \"Until [Wife] begins receiving payments pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order(s), [Husband] shall continue to send [Wife] the sum of $699.52 each month . . . and [Husband] shall take no action which might affect the right o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ce4b910-c60f-4590-9085-84b8fe75fcbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057","title":"CourtListener opinion 1087057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1087057 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1087057 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ce4b910-c60f-4590-9085-84b8fe75fcbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057","title":"CourtListener opinion 1087057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ce4b910-c60f-4590-9085-84b8fe75fcbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1087057-1087057","title":"CourtListener opinion 1087057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Shiloh Raywolfgang Brummitt appeals his convictions, after a jury trial, of false imprisonment by violence, kidnapping, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, disobeying a domestic relations order, and battery. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging Brummitt with false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, § 236; count 1),1 corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 3), criminal threats (§ 422; count 4), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10874341 Docket: 1 which was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10874341 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: • To equalize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad credits3 which were not included in the divorce order or Exhibit 1. On or about June 16,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f their marital property and how said property was to be divided. 1 • To equalize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad cr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad credits3 which were not included in the divorce order or Exhibit 1. On or about June 16,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa39c3c5-b184-4eaa-b2ba-082c0737a325","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10874341-10874341","title":"CourtListener opinion 10874341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 which was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: CA-310 (Fam. Ct. Monongalia Cnty. Case No. FC-31-2018-D-176) MELISSA DOWER, Petitioner Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Joshua Dower (\"Husband\") appeals the Monongalia County Family Court's July 8, 2024, order denying his motion to reopen equitable distribution due to alleged errors in the parties' September 19, 2019, divorce order. Respondent Melissa Dower (\"Wife\") filed a response in support of the family court's decision.1 Husband filed a reply. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties' arguments, the record on appeal, and the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"408d0800-53bd-47b0-8a6e-f226b541837d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887006","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10887006 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10887006 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"408d0800-53bd-47b0-8a6e-f226b541837d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887006","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"408d0800-53bd-47b0-8a6e-f226b541837d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887006","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . That judgment provided that husband's \"military retirement ben- efits shall be equally divided as of the date of marriage to May 15, 2009,\" and that the parties \"shall cooperate with each other in every respect to cause a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as may be necessary to be entered to achieve the intent of this agreement in the division of the retirement asset and will split the cost of preparing such QDRO equally.\" In January 2013, wife's attorney prepared a supplemental judgment that awarded wife \"38.05 percent of [husband's] final disposable military retired pay[.]\" The judg- ment referenced husba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"408d0800-53bd-47b0-8a6e-f226b541837d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887006","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: idence and mailing address,\" and that he \"kept the PO box open\" for his daugh- ter's use. Viewing husband's conduct in light of the stipulated dissolution judgment—which explicitly required the par- ties to \"cooperate\" and \"equally divide\" husband's military retirement benefits during the marriage—we conclude that husband's failure to inform the trial court of a new mailing Cite as 340 Or App 213 (2025) 217 address nearly three years after the dissolution judgment was entered was reasonable. As a consequence, any neglect \"was excusable.\" Hiatt v. Congoleum Industries, 279 Or 569, 577, 569 P2d 567 (1977) (concluding that the mov"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"408d0800-53bd-47b0-8a6e-f226b541837d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887006-10887006","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887006","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: litary for 364 months and that the 218 Dintleman and Dintleman marriage was 140 months. As a consequence, the attorney determined: \"The figure used by DFAS, 38.05%, is close to what we believe represents the entire marital share. This would mean that the pension share was improperly calculated and the pension was incorrectly divided. Generally speak- ing, a spouse is entitled to one-half of the marital share of the employee's retired pay. If 38.05% is the marital share, then the [wife] would be entitled to one-half of that figure, or 19.025%.\" Moreover, although the stipulated dissolution judg- ment required"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10887761 Extracted case name: COA JANICE LODEN SULLIVAN APPELLANT v. JAMES WAYNE SULLIVAN APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10887761 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: § 6:32 (discussing \"four major weaknesses\" of the deferred distribution method). In addition to other potential weaknesses of this method, PERS will not administer payments ordered by divorce decrees, and PERS benefits are not subject to a division through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Pruitt, 144 So. 3d at 1253 (¶12). Therefore, a court can only order the PERS member to make payments to his or her former spouse. 7 case [utilizing the deferred distribution approach], the nonowning spouse will receive his or her exact correct share of the retirement benefits.\"). ¶14. The only error in the judgment is that it limits Janice's right to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e sum of all twelve years of payments because the payments are in the nature of lump sum alimony. ¶2. We conclude that the payments are not lump sum alimony but rather reflect what has been referred to as a \"deferred distribution\" of the marital portion of retirement benefits. Therefore, the chancellor did not err by denying Janice's request for judgment for the sum of all future payments. However, we also conclude that the logic of the chancellor's deferred distribution dictates that Janice is entitled to her share of the marital portion of all PERS benefits received by Wayne. Therefore, we modify the judgment by striking"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iscussing \"four major weaknesses\" of the deferred distribution method). In addition to other potential weaknesses of this method, PERS will not administer payments ordered by divorce decrees, and PERS benefits are not subject to a division through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Pruitt, 144 So. 3d at 1253 (¶12). Therefore, a court can only order the PERS member to make payments to his or her former spouse. 7 case [utilizing the deferred distribution approach], the nonowning spouse will receive his or her exact correct share of the retirement benefits.\"). ¶14. The only error in the judgment is that it limits Janice's right to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e81a0970-83d7-4316-8019-b74cc5cf3f86","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10887761-10887761","title":"CourtListener opinion 10887761","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This is the second appeal in this divorce case. In the first appeal, this Court reversed and remanded for additional findings regarding the equitable division of the marital estate. The only issue in this appeal concerns the marital portion of the husband's Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) benefits. Wayne Sullivan was already retired and drawing PERS benefits when the parties separated. On remand, the chancellor calculated the marital portion of Wayne's monthly benefit payment and ordered him to pay his ex-wife, Janice Sullivan, one half of that amount each month for t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 10920316 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10920316 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and Lisa Kottke as contingent beneficiaries. Id. Kottke died in 2012, but Scholz was still living when Kleinfeldt died. Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in September 2022 after a 16-year marriage. As part of the divorce, Kleinfeldt and Langdon agreed to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stating that Langdon would receive 21.3% of Kleinfeldt's 401k benefits. Dkt. 21-7, at 2. Pursuant to the QDRO, the plan divided the benefits and paid Langdon her percentage of the plan, which amounted to $65,953.25. After the divorce, Kleinfeldt attempted to remove Langdon as the primary beneficiary of his 401k. On October 4, 2022, Kleinfeldt s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o as the contingent beneficiary, she was the proper recipient of the 401k after Langdon's removal. UNDISPUTED FACTS The following facts are undisputed. Carl Kleinfeldt worked at Packaging Corporation of America for 32 years and participated in a 401k retirement plan administered by plaintiff Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. The plan allows participants to name beneficiaries to receive unpaid plan benefits if the participant dies. Dkt. 27-8, at 5. There are two ways to change a beneficiary: a participant can \"contact the PCA Benefits Center at 1-877-453-0945\" or \"update [his] benefi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: October 4, 2022, Kleinfeldt sent a fax to Packaging Corporation, attaching a copy of the divorce judgment and writing: \"Please remove my former spouse, Dena Suzanne Kleinfeldt from the health, vision and dental insurance and as a beneficiary of my 401(k), pension and life insurance accounts. Please feel free to fax any necessary paperwork to the above fax that I may need to complete.\"1 Dkt. 27–3. Packaging Corporation received the fax and removed Langdon from health, vision, and dental insurance. Dkt. 23 at 2. Packaging Corporation did not remove Langdon as a beneficiary of the 401k plan. Id. Kleinfeldt died on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4df9cfbe-eb71-44d7-a455-0c16cd9e76c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-10920316-10920316","title":"CourtListener opinion 10920316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: infeldt's estate and Scholz's estate. ANALYSIS The question before the court is which defendant is the proper beneficiary of Kleinfeldt's 401k plan. The 401k plan is an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), so this court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Both Langdon and Kleinfeldt's estate have moved for summary judgment. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f476f34a-2eda-4097-88f0-f823c148f3b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086","title":"CourtListener opinion 11013086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11013086 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11013086 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f476f34a-2eda-4097-88f0-f823c148f3b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086","title":"CourtListener opinion 11013086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f476f34a-2eda-4097-88f0-f823c148f3b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086","title":"CourtListener opinion 11013086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . That judgment provided that husband's \"military retirement ben- efits shall be equally divided as of the date of marriage to May 15, 2009,\" and that the parties \"shall cooperate with each other in every respect to cause a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as may be necessary to be entered to achieve the intent of this agreement in the division of the retirement asset and will split the cost of preparing such QDRO equally.\" In January 2013, wife's attorney prepared a supplemental judgment that awarded wife \"38.05 percent of [husband's] final disposable military retired pay[.]\" The judg- ment referenced husba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f476f34a-2eda-4097-88f0-f823c148f3b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086","title":"CourtListener opinion 11013086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: esidence and mailing address,\" and that he \"kept the PO box open\" for his daughter's use. Viewing husband's conduct in light of the stipulated dissolution judgment—which explicitly required the par- ties to \"cooperate\" and \"equally divide\" husband's military retirement benefits during the marriage—we conclude that husband's failure to inform the trial court of a new mailing address nearly three years after the dissolution judgment Cite as 340 Or App 213 (2025) 217 was entered was reasonable. As a consequence, any neglect \"was excusable.\" Hiatt v. Congoleum Industries, 279 Or 569, 577, 569 P2d 567 (1977) (concluding that the mov"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f476f34a-2eda-4097-88f0-f823c148f3b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11013086-11013086","title":"CourtListener opinion 11013086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: litary for 364 months and that the 218 Dintleman and Dintleman marriage was 140 months. As a consequence, the attorney determined: \"The figure used by DFAS, 38.05%, is close to what we believe represents the entire marital share. This would mean that the pension share was improperly calculated and the pension was incorrectly divided. Generally speak- ing, a spouse is entitled to one-half of the marital share of the employee's retired pay. If 38.05% is the marital share, then the [wife] would be entitled to one-half of that figure, or 19.025%.\" Moreover, although the stipulated dissolution judg- ment required"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11016649 Extracted case name: LLC v. NTE. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA24-183. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11016649 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y[.]\" The Consent Order set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL \"to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]\"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 17 July"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL \"to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]\"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 17 July 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ustody hearing if necessary[.]\" The Consent Order set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL \"to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]\"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f18e9cac-6d0d-4283-bbda-f37ead4eed12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11016649-11016649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11016649","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA24-183","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: in 2003 and separated in December 2015. The parties had three children together during their marriage. On 29 January 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting claims for child custody, child support, post-separation support and alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. Defendant filed her answer and counterclaim on 3 March 2016. The trial court entered a Consent Order on 18 August 2016. This Consent Order indicated the parties \"had reached a full settlement on the issues of temporary custody, post-separation support, alimony, equitable distribution and attorney's fees, although the parties rese"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014f1986-f5a9-491c-b542-5936c568c165","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11049046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"323 F.3d 32","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11049046 Extracted reporter citation: 323 F.3d 32. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11049046 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014f1986-f5a9-491c-b542-5936c568c165","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11049046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"323 F.3d 32","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014f1986-f5a9-491c-b542-5936c568c165","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11049046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"323 F.3d 32","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ss comprising \"all persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period.\" ECF 96-2, at 7, § 1.46. The proposed class excludes the defendants and their beneficiaries. Id. The \"Class Period\" is defined as \"the period from January 18, 2016, through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court.\" Id. at 3, § 1.13. The plaintiffs have established"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014f1986-f5a9-491c-b542-5936c568c165","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11049046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"323 F.3d 32","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ospital Corporation, its Board of Directors, its Retirement Committee, and unknown Does—breached certain fiduciary duties owed to the Children's Hospital Corporation Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan (the \"Plan\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. The complaint alleges that the defendants retained imprudent investments and permitted the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees after failing to properly monitor those investments and fees. Following extensive discovery, the parties engaged in private mediation and agreed upon settlement terms. Pending before the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014f1986-f5a9-491c-b542-5936c568c165","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11049046-11049046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11049046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"323 F.3d 32","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ing \"all persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period.\" ECF 96-2, at 7, § 1.46. The proposed class excludes the defendants and their beneficiaries. Id. The \"Class Period\" is defined as \"the period from January 18, 2016, through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court.\" Id. at 3, § 1.13. The plaintiffs have established"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11054857 Extracted reporter citation: 828 A.2d 376. Docket: 1272 WDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11054857 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension appraiser Lance Melin, the marital portion of the retirement benefit was valued at $29,061.96 with Wife's portion of her survivor benefit valued at $18,906.61. If Wife receives 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefit without any offset of her survivorshi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e not covered by any insurance. Wife has had three back surgeries. Wife has Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b41c49-485c-4835-939e-5eb96849c12e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11054857-11054857","title":"CourtListener opinion 11054857","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11055831 Extracted reporter citation: 828 A.2d 376. Docket: 1272 WDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11055831 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension appraiser Lance Melin, the marital portion of the retirement benefit was valued at $29,061.96 with Wife's portion of her survivor benefit valued at $18,906.61. If Wife receives 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefit without any offset of her survivorshi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e not covered by any insurance. Wife has had three back surgeries. Wife has Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"594b019c-9203-4304-909f-5f8bbb60daf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11055831-11055831","title":"CourtListener opinion 11055831","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1272 WDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"828 A.2d 376","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11060571 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Yolanda and Damon Williams. YOLANDA WILLIAMS. Extracted reporter citation: 97 Cal.App.4th 847. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11060571 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nfusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without having made any elections regarding her community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits. Under the terms of the 2008 order, \"if No"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Code sections 2073 and 2074. 5 In support of his claim, Damon quotes from two paragraphs in the court's order. The first explains that Damon requested the Termination Order because he \"wished to discontinue the portion of the retirement allowance from his pension that had been allocated to his late spouse, Petitioner Yolanda Williams in order to increase his own retirement pension benefit\" and that he \"believed that her retirement benefit under the QDRO expired upon her death.\" The second reads, \"Respondent is mistaken. . . . His position demonstrates an imperfect understanding of how the QDRO works via-a-vis the co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3d0c61d-a2f1-466c-a1ac-847df0cdb560","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060571-11060571","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060571","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"97 Cal.App.4th 847","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11060618 Extracted case name: HEATHER MARIE BAILEY v. DANIEL MICHAEL BAILEY. Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11060618 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y division and making a child support determination, the trial court stated, \"[e]ach party shall receive Fifty 8 Percent (50%) of the other's pensions and retirement accounts on the date of this decision. These awards should be accomplished by the use of a QDRO[(qualified domestic relations order)] or other advantageous means.\" The trial court concluded by denying an award of attorney's fees in the case \"[b]ased on the equities of the case, availability of money, and the fault of the divorce.\" Both parties expressed dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of the trial court's order. The record reflects that Father"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: her attorney's fees on appeal. Turning to the underlying circumstances of this case, before the parties married, Father became a professional engineer and worked for the Murfreesboro Electrical Department. Father started toward a pension and opened a 401(k) retirement account, contributing to that account for three years before marrying Mother. During this time, Mother was a teacher in Rutherford County while parenting two children from a prior marriage (the Stepchildren), whom Father helped to raise throughout their marriage. When Mother gave birth to the couple's first shared child in 2014, her employment became \"a huge poin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: V-9505 L. Craig Johnson, Judge1 ___________________________________ No. M2022-01467-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ Father and Mother divorced. In ruling upon various matters contested by the parties, the trial court evenly divided Father's pension without determining whether a portion was separate property, awarded Mother rehabilitative alimony, and named Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appeals, asserting error as to all three determinations. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to treat the pre-marriage portion of the pension as separate property. As for the trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5313b050-398f-4a6b-b302-5d6dd855b5e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11060618-11060618","title":"CourtListener opinion 11060618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): seeks her attorney's fees on appeal. Turning to the underlying circumstances of this case, before the parties married, Father became a professional engineer and worked for the Murfreesboro Electrical Department. Father started toward a pension and opened a 401(k) retirement account, contributing to that account for three years before marrying Mother. During this time, Mother was a teacher in Rutherford County while parenting two children from a prior marriage (the Stepchildren), whom Father helped to raise throughout their marriage. When Mother gave birth to the couple's first shared child in 2014, her employment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11064113 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11064113 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: S. Grossman, and John H. Cousins, for appellee. Argued: John H. Cousins. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations BOGGS, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Carrie E. Hardie (formerly, Carrie E. Dutton), appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") issued by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, in her action for divorce from defendant- appellee, Thomas E. Dutton. However, we dismiss this appeal because Carrie did not file a timely appeal of the underlying divorce decree, the QDRO is not an independent final order, and Carrie has not sought a finding or re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: decree of divorce (\"divorce decree\") on February 2, 2024. In the divorce decree, the trial court described the Plan and its status as marital or separate property: [Thomas] has an interest in the Jones Day Qualified Defined Benefit Plan. The portion of this retirement plan earned prior to the marriage and any accruals thereon are [Thomas's] separate property. All benefits earned and accruals thereon after the date of the parties' marriage through June 30, 2022 are marital. (Feb 2, 2024 Jgmt. Entry/Decree of Divorce at 17.) The trial court noted in the divorce decree that the Plan is \"subject to a QDRO which has been issu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arrie has not sought a finding or resolution of ambiguity in the divorce decree from the trial court. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {¶ 2} This appeal concerns the trial court's distribution of a single, albeit significant, asset—Thomas's defined-benefit pension plan (the \"Plan\") sponsored by the No. 24AP-286 2 Jones Day law firm, of which Thomas is a partner. Thomas entered the Plan in 1992. The plan offers a lifetime monthly benefit upon retirement. {¶ 3} Carrie and Thomas married in November 2011. It was a second marriage for both. Thomas's previous marriage to Susan Dutton was dissolved in 2010, and as part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d437e126-a32f-484a-ace9-743379f3991a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11064113-11064113","title":"CourtListener opinion 11064113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: prepare a QDRO \"as proposed by the Jones Day Qualified Defined Benefit Plan Model QDRO with No. 24AP-286 6 changes/inclusions as specifically ordered herein.\" Id. at 39. Private pension plans that qualify under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., are subject to restrictions, including that benefits may not be assigned or alienated other than through a QDRO. Taylor v. Taylor, 44 Ohio St.3d 61, 62 (1989), citing 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3). A QDRO \"is an order ‘which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternative payee the right"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11065913 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Vaughn. Extracted reporter citation: 433 S.W.3d 523. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11065913 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: owns should go to him. Doris also requested a fishing boat to \"even out the value[,]\" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in \"a house in the country with Marvin,\" but denied that sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: oat to \"even out the value[,]\" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in \"a house in the country with Marvin,\" but denied that she was living in \"the city.\" Doris testif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ld go to him. Doris also requested a fishing boat to \"even out the value[,]\" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in \"a house in the country with Marvin,\" but denied that sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca425964-dde8-47f1-8ae7-eadf88f32e60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11065913-11065913","title":"CourtListener opinion 11065913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"433 S.W.3d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: . When Marvin was at the hotel, he would tell Doris that he was working late or dealing with a rental property. Doris testified that Marvin denied having an affair. Doris asked the trial court to consider her income versus Marvin's income when making the property division. She requested that the rental properties, owned in part by third parties, go to Marvin, because the rental properties were his thing, and she believed selling and dividing the rental properties would be acrimonious. Doris requested the real property with the farms and the cows be awarded to her. She testified she worked the farm with Marvin, including"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11066538 Extracted case name: KIM DIXON SMITH v. KEVIN JAY SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 03-C-97-009400 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11066538 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aryland Rule 2-535. Id. at 678-79. Mr. Leadroot, following his divorce, had purchased back a period of his retirement contribution, which he had cashed in to use for work-related moving expenses during his marriage to Ms. Leadroot. Id. at 675. The original qualified domestic relations order in Leadroot included a fractional equation that used the months of marriage for the numerator and total months of service for the denominator. Id. at 676-77. The trial court in Leadroot thus edited the fraction to include the redeemed months for the denominator but did not add back the time to the numerator. 11 Id. The trial court intended for this de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ompute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud, mistake, or irregularity in the 1999 constituted pension order. DIVORCE – MILITARY RETIREMENT – PENSION OR DISABILITY RIGHTS Under state law, an interest in a military retirement plan is marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce to the extent it was earned during the marriage. The retired pay award is the former spouse's marital share of the servicemember's retired pay, and this sum is determined with guidance from the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and the subsequent regulations promulgated by th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Maryland Rule 2-535(a). After thirty days has passed, the trial court may exercise revisory power only in the case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 2-535(b). Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Maryland courts have narrowly defined and strictly interpreted the terms fraud, mistake, and irregularity, in order to ensure the finality of judgments. The trial court erred by modifying the fraction used to compute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ed502e4-0f6f-42b5-b368-e8c96890c730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066538-11066538","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service. In re Marriage of Beckman, 800 P. 2d 1376, 1379-80 (Colo. App. 1990) (citing W. Troyan, \"Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions,\" 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)). Therefore, when the military retirement benefit is a result of the combination of active and reserve component service, points are the proper method for calculating the fraction. W. Troyan, \"Procedures for Evaluati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0843312a-4b99-4ba9-9931-f5fe88dcb488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11066615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11066615 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0843312a-4b99-4ba9-9931-f5fe88dcb488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0843312a-4b99-4ba9-9931-f5fe88dcb488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the dog, Bailey. • Husband shall receive the dog, Cooper. • Wife shall receive her Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\") and Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") retirement accounts, except that Husband shall receive $40,094.60 from Wife's TSP account, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). • Husband shall receive his 167th TRF Federal Credit Union (\"167th TRFFCU\") and West Virginia Teachers' Retirement System (\"WVTRS\") retirement accounts. • Husband shall receive exclusive ownership of the marital home and be solely responsible for all associated costs. • Husband was to provide Wife with items from a list of her personal belo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0843312a-4b99-4ba9-9931-f5fe88dcb488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: County's September 5, 2024, final divorce order. Respondent Terry Frick (\"Husband\") responded in support of the family court's decision.1 Wife did not file a reply. The issues on appeal are which party should receive the marital pets, division of the parties' retirement accounts, and Husband's alleged failure to return certain personal property items to Wife. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties' arguments, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0843312a-4b99-4ba9-9931-f5fe88dcb488","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11066615-11066615","title":"CourtListener opinion 11066615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ailey. • Husband shall receive the dog, Cooper. • Wife shall receive her Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\") and Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") retirement accounts, except that Husband shall receive $40,094.60 from Wife's TSP account, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). • Husband shall receive his 167th TRF Federal Credit Union (\"167th TRFFCU\") and West Virginia Teachers' Retirement System (\"WVTRS\") retirement accounts. • Husband shall receive exclusive ownership of the marital home and be solely responsible for all associated costs. • Husband was to provide Wife with items from a list of her personal belo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b29502a-0102-422a-b7e7-cdc50bc71e0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"385 S.W.3d 337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11073671 Extracted reporter citation: 385 S.W.3d 337. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11073671 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b29502a-0102-422a-b7e7-cdc50bc71e0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"385 S.W.3d 337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b29502a-0102-422a-b7e7-cdc50bc71e0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"385 S.W.3d 337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: $35,744.52. The difference between them, $20,309, was awarded to Adrienne. This amount was offset by Adrienne's share of the student-loan debt, leaving $6,904.18. The court ordered that $6,904.18 would be assessed against Erik's 401k account by means of a QDRO. The court also found that Erik's payment of Adrienne's student loans during the marriage was a gift to the marriage. The attorney's fees incurred during the divorce case were evenly divided between the parties; however, the court ordered Adrienne to pay the attorney's fees for case number 43DR-18-13, the order-of-protection case, because it found tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b29502a-0102-422a-b7e7-cdc50bc71e0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"385 S.W.3d 337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eals from the order of divorce alleging that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to determine which items of personal property were marital or nonmarital; (2) assigning half of Erik's preseparation student-loan debt to her; (3) \"dividing the parties' retirement accounts equally, but in an inequitable manner\"; (4) ordering Adrienne to pay Erik's attorney's fees regarding her request for an order of protection in a separate proceeding (case number 43DR-18-13); and (5) denying her request for production of Erik's medical records. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. Relevant Facts In August 2016, Erik filed f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b29502a-0102-422a-b7e7-cdc50bc71e0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073671-11073671","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"385 S.W.3d 337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nd Adrienne's was valued at $35,744.52. The difference between them, $20,309, was awarded to Adrienne. This amount was offset by Adrienne's share of the student-loan debt, leaving $6,904.18. The court ordered that $6,904.18 would be assessed against Erik's 401k account by means of a QDRO. The court also found that Erik's payment of Adrienne's student loans during the marriage was a gift to the marriage. The attorney's fees incurred during the divorce case were evenly divided between the parties; however, the court ordered Adrienne to pay the attorney's fees for case number 43DR-18-13, the order-of-protection"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fd4bf52-1227-459c-94ab-0df5d66efa4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11073773 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11073773 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fd4bf52-1227-459c-94ab-0df5d66efa4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fd4bf52-1227-459c-94ab-0df5d66efa4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d be sold at public auction at a time and place of their choosing and the proceeds of the sale, after payments of costs and debts, would be equally divided between them. The court also equally divided the assets in the couple's whole-life insurance policy, retirement accounts, and bank accounts, including the money in the bank account that Amy established for her limited liability company, Amy Williams, PLLC. Finally, the circuit court's October 30 decree addressed some of the pending motions for contempt. First, the court denied Mark's petition to hold Amy in contempt. The circuit court found that Amy did not willfully vi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fd4bf52-1227-459c-94ab-0df5d66efa4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: led on December 4, 2017, alleging that Mark disposed of personal property and failed to undergo a court-ordered mental evaluation; and finally, a petition filed February 9, 2019, alleging that Mark failed to pay child support, failed to prepare a qualified domestic relations order as the court directed in the October 30 decree, and otherwise engaged in \"willful behavior.\" Accordingly, we dismiss the remaining issues in the appeal for lack of a final order. IV. Conclusion We affirm the custody order because the circuit court did not clearly err when it determined that it was in the best interests of the minor children to live w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fd4bf52-1227-459c-94ab-0df5d66efa4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11073773-11073773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11073773","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tody. See Carillo, 2019 Ark. App. 189, at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 152. Therefore, the circuit court's custody determination is affirmed. 12 B. Finality Mark also argues that the circuit court's decisions regarding supervised visitation, contempt, alimony, and property division constitute reversible error. We are without jurisdiction to address these arguments, however, because with the exception of the circuit court's order awarding custody, the decrees in this case are not final, appealable orders. Several of the contempt petitions that Amy filed are still pending, and the decrees entered on October 30, 2018, and February 11"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11074119 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11074119 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: z Albuquerque, NM Ofelia Infante-Garcia Mesilla, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Petitioner Bybee Ludwig-Vigil (Wife) appeals the district court's determination of her community interest in Respondent Luis Vigil's (Husband) retirement benefits and denial of her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Wife argues the district court erroneously valued her share of Husband's retirement benefits based on the current cash-out value, rather than the present value of the future benefits as of the date of divorce. Additionally, Wife argues the district court erred by initially agreeing, then later refus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rt held an evidentiary hearing (the February hearing) to determine Wife's interest in Husband's retirement. The district court heard testimony from Husband's expert witness, Don Beasley, a certified public accountant, who testified as an expert in the area of pension valuation regarding Wife's interest in Husband's retirement. Mr. Beasley testified that he calculated the value of Husband's retirement benefits upon the date he would be eligible to retire—in 2027—to be $132,981.49. Mr. Beasley stated that his calculation was based on certain assumptions, including that (1) Husband would continue working until he became el"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n of future benefits is not able to be calculated.\" Mr. Beasley advised that the \"only options\" he thought were available to the district court were to either use his initial valuation of Wife's interest in the amount of $8,321.28 or \"[e]stablish [a qualified domestic relations order] with proceeds paid to [Wife] based upon known facts at the time of a triggering event.\" Mr. Beasley closed the report by recommending the first option as the \"better, more equitable decision.\" Following the submission of Mr. Beasley's report, in a response to Husband's request for attorney and expert witness fees, Wife requested that the district court all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"496074d4-2be8-4dcb-bcb5-569db5f16f03","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074119-11074119","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074119","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e argues the district court erred in valuing Wife's interest in Husband's retirement benefits \"based on the current cash-out value\" rather than on the \"present value of the future benefits on the date of divorce.\" Typically, a district court's distribution of community property is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Arnold v. Arnold, 2003-NMCA-114, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 381, 77 P.3d 285. Here, because Wife's argument regarding the method of dividing Husband's retirement benefits presents a question of the district court's application of law to the facts, we review this issue de novo. See Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2010-NMCA-013, ¶ 21, 147 N.M. 625"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26e65db7-5b55-4275-b73d-2b16f69725c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"702 P.2d 353","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11074135 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Heeter. Extracted reporter citation: 702 P.2d 353. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11074135 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26e65db7-5b55-4275-b73d-2b16f69725c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"702 P.2d 353","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26e65db7-5b55-4275-b73d-2b16f69725c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"702 P.2d 353","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge The Sawyers Law Group Melissa A. Sawyers Hobbs, NM for Appellee Glen L. Houston Hobbs, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Respondent appeals a qualified domestic relations order. This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Respondent has filed a memorandum to supplement his docketing statement, which we construe as a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition. Having duly considered that document, we are unpersuaded by Respondent's arguments and affirm the order of the district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26e65db7-5b55-4275-b73d-2b16f69725c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"702 P.2d 353","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: L FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge The Sawyers Law Group Melissa A. Sawyers Hobbs, NM for Appellee Glen L. Houston Hobbs, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Respondent appeals a qualified domestic relations order. This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Respondent has filed a memorandum to supplement his docketing statement, which we construe as a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition. Having duly considered that document, we are unpersuaded by Respondent's arguments and affirm the order of the district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26e65db7-5b55-4275-b73d-2b16f69725c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11074135-11074135","title":"CourtListener opinion 11074135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"702 P.2d 353","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ee issues raised in the docketing statement. [MIO 3] {7} The first of those issues involved a \"credit/set off\" of $3,893.62 that Petitioner asserts should have been $6,393.62, based upon his payment of a property tax debt after the entry of an order dividing community property and debts. [MIO 1, 3] Although this Court has no duty to search the record for facts, Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, we note that it appears Respondent presented some sort of evidence regarding the payment of that tax debt, and the district court entered an order reciting both that he would be credited for that payment in the form of a credit in the division of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505d3f1b-f492-45f0-a76b-8f6670b29e70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076277","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"551 S.W.3d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11076277 Extracted reporter citation: 551 S.W.3d 394. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11076277 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505d3f1b-f492-45f0-a76b-8f6670b29e70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076277","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"551 S.W.3d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505d3f1b-f492-45f0-a76b-8f6670b29e70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076277","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"551 S.W.3d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e. The decree also required Evelyn to provide the court with a statement showing the total amount of retirement benefits she had drawn since the divorce complaint was filed in January 2014 through the effective date of a qualified domestic-relations order (QDRO). Jim was awarded judgment for one-half this amount, but no amount of the judgment was stated. On March 14, 2016, the court entered a QDRO to effectuate the division of Evelyn's retirement benefits. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part, \"The Defendant, James R. Chism, is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the Plaintiff, Evelyn Chism's (a.k.a. Mary E. Chism"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"505d3f1b-f492-45f0-a76b-8f6670b29e70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076277-11076277","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076277","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"551 S.W.3d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ir first marriage ended in divorce in 1987. They remarried in 1993. During the marriage, Evelyn worked for the postal service. The parties were divorced for the second time pursuant to a decree entered on December 17, 2015. The circuit court found that any retirement benefits Evelyn had earned from her employment with the postal service were marital property and awarded Jim one-half of those benefits as well as any retirement benefits Evelyn had drawn during the pendency of the divorce. The decree also required Evelyn to provide the court with a statement showing the total amount of retirement benefits she had drawn since t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11076318 Extracted reporter citation: 479 S.W.3d 56. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11076318 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f is entitled to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Retirement Plan, including, but not limited to, survivor's benefits, earned as a result of his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Court will enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order effectuating the division thereof. 11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall divide the Defendant's retirement with the United States Army Reserve. The Plaintiff shall name the children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries of the retirement benefits accumulated and divided by this Order. The Court shall enter a Qualified Domest"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cies to their original amounts at the time of divorce—$250,000 and $75,000; (2) to rename his children as his beneficiaries to his life insurance policies and to rename his ex-wife, appellee Shirlee Burris, as a survivor beneficiary to his civil service retirement plan, and (3) to assist in providing Shirlee one-half of his military retirement benefits that she was awarded in their divorce decree and returning to her the past-due amounts totaling $92,977.50. We affirm. Wayne and Shirlee divorced in 1999 after a twenty-six-year marriage. The relevant orders of the divorce decree are as follows: 9. The Court finds"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: led to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Retirement Plan, including, but not limited to, survivor's benefits, earned as a result of his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Court will enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order effectuating the division thereof. 11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall divide the Defendant's retirement with the United States Army Reserve. The Plaintiff shall name the children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries of the retirement benefits accumulated and divided by this Order. The Court shall enter a Qualified Domest"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f8a22e-df19-4cae-ba75-d00abe878a20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11076318-11076318","title":"CourtListener opinion 11076318","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.3d 56","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: amounts totaling $92,977.50. We affirm. Wayne and Shirlee divorced in 1999 after a twenty-six-year marriage. The relevant orders of the divorce decree are as follows: 9. The Court finds that the Defendant shall maintain all life insurance policies and survivor benefits now in effect on his life and shall name the parties children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries thereon, and shall provide written proof of the same to the Plaintiff. 10. . . . The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11077606 Extracted reporter citation: 257 S.W.3d 864. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11077606 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: unt of debt the parties still owed, having taken out multiple mortgages on the home. After the decree was entered, on October 8, 2015, he applied for a refinance loan with Arvest Bank, but his application was denied because the home's appraisal value 4 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is an order that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant's retirement plan[.]\" Ark. Code Ann. § 9-18-101(A) (Repl. 2020). 5 According to George, the $20,000 payment was intended as \"[f]ifty per"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies in Montie's abstract and brief. See Hobson v. Hobson, 2023 Ark. App. 482 (Hobson II). Montie has now filed a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum curing the deficiencies. 2 9. Montie will receive ownership of her retirement accounts. George will receive ownership of his Entergy retirement annuity. Montie will receive 53% of gross amount of the AEP retirement account valued as of the date of divorce. The circuit court approved the settlement and incorporated the parties' mediation agreement into the September 17 decree as follows: 8. That the parties' property and debts shall b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 5, 2016. Regarding the division of retirement assets, George testified that at the time of the mediation agreement, he was employed at American Electric Power Company (AEP) and participated in two AEP-sponsored retirement plans—a 401(k) savings plan and a pension plan. He said that these plans' benefits were held in separate accounts with separate balances. As best he could remember, at the time of the divorce, the account holding his pension benefits had a balance of approximately $76,000, and his 401(k) savings account had a balance of approximately $99,000. He testified that the parties' mediation negotiation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6393342e-af20-4fc8-a214-edea47553f32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077606-11077606","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"257 S.W.3d 864","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nying her postdecree claims relating to a mediated property-settlement agreement.1 For reversal, she argues that the circuit court erred (1) in denying her claim for breach of contract; (2) in finding that the mediation agreement does not include appellee's 401(k) savings plan; (3) in finding that there was no fraud on the court; (4) in awarding appellee's 1 Appellant Montie Hobson is an Arkansas attorney representing herself in this appeal. In the proceedings below, she was represented by counsel at times and self- represented at other times. Appellee George Hobson did not file a responsive brief in this appeal."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11077819 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11077819 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ssets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that \"Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" Additionally, the consent judgment made provisions to handle different possible outcomes of unre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: VACARELLA, JR. relinquishes all right, title and interest in and to the following assets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that \"Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: N JOSEPH VACARELLA, JR. relinquishes all right, title and interest in and to the following assets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that \"Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68407558-efcf-4926-8793-321a9808004e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11077819-11077819","title":"CourtListener opinion 11077819","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that \"Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043.\" Additionally, the consent judgment made provisions to handle different possible outcomes of unre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11079132 Extracted reporter citation: 216 So.3d 130. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079132 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pecifically stated that \"Shannon Johnson will receive $198,000.00 from Frank Johnson's 401K, IRA or retirement account at Bayer US. Frank Johnson will execute all documents and waivers necessary to effectuate the payout.\" Ms. Johnson referenced the three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\") which had been issued by the trial court in connection with the settlement agreement. The first QDRO issued on November 12, 2021, established that $198,000.00 was to be paid to Ms. Johnson. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part: 9. The Alternate Payee's interest in the Plan shall be $198,000.00 of the Participant's total vested account balan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: PELLANT AFFIRMED MAY 7, 2024 SCJ DLD DNA The defendant, Frank Johnson, appeals the trial court's judgment of April 25, 2023, finding him in contempt of court and awarding the plaintiff, Shannon Johnson, $39,544.99 as the balance due from Mr. Johnson's retirement account as provided for the parties' community property settlement. For the following reasons, we affirm. The parties were married on July 10, 1993, and subsequently divorced in November 2020. They executed a community property settlement agreement before a notary public on December 20, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the parties jointly filed a Petition to Part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2020, the parties jointly filed a Petition to Partition Community Property and Joint Motion to Homologate Community Property Partition Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement stipulated that Ms. Johnson would receive $198,000.00 from Mr. Johnson's 401K plan with Bayer US Corporation. In November 2022, Ms. Johnson sought to withdraw her portion from the 401K. She received a payment on November 7, 2022, in the amount of $158,445.01, an amount which is $39,544.99 less than to which the parties agreed. Ms. Johnson subsequently filed a rule for contempt on September 7, 2022. The trial court conducted a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caf804ff-3fd6-46d0-88ba-abacb6f9a5e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079132-11079132","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 So.3d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ns Orders (\"QDRO\") which had been issued by the trial court in connection with the settlement agreement. The first QDRO issued on November 12, 2021, established that $198,000.00 was to be paid to Ms. Johnson. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part: 9. The Alternate Payee's interest in the Plan shall be $198,000.00 of the Participant's total vested account balance under the Plan as of the Valuation Date. . . 10. The Alternate Payee's award is entitled to earnings (defined as gains, losses, dividends and interest) from the Valuation Date to the date the award is segregated from the Participant's account. From and after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a7b61d-8942-4d25-bb24-1a4b0f0fd72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079415","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"171 So.3d 1097","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11079415 Extracted reporter citation: 171 So.3d 1097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079415 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a7b61d-8942-4d25-bb24-1a4b0f0fd72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079415","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"171 So.3d 1097","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a7b61d-8942-4d25-bb24-1a4b0f0fd72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079415","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"171 So.3d 1097","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0.00. In October 2018, Ms. Brown filed another rule for contempt alleging that Mr. Caffey failed to meet his child support obligation since February 2008. While awaiting a hearing on Ms. Brown's rule for contempt, in November 2018, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order regarding the February 2008 judgment of contempt and child support arrearages. In April 2019, a hearing on Ms. Brown's October 2019 rule for contempt was held, and the trial court rendered judgment in May 2019, finding Mr. Caffey in contempt and made executory the child support arrearages of $791,250.00. In January 2023, Ms. Brown filed a rule to show"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a7b61d-8942-4d25-bb24-1a4b0f0fd72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079415-11079415","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079415","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"171 So.3d 1097","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ctober 2018, Ms. Brown filed another rule for contempt alleging that Mr. Caffey failed to meet his child support obligation since February 2008. While awaiting a hearing on Ms. Brown's rule for contempt, in November 2018, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order regarding the February 2008 judgment of contempt and child support arrearages. In April 2019, a hearing on Ms. Brown's October 2019 rule for contempt was held, and the trial court rendered judgment in May 2019, finding Mr. Caffey in contempt and made executory the child support arrearages of $791,250.00. In January 2023, Ms. Brown filed a rule to show"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11079974 Extracted reporter citation: 937 F. Supp. 2d 1048. Docket: No. 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079974 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: niv. in St. Louis, 960 F.3d 478, 482 (8th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing between administrative fees and investment-management fees). Here, Wells Fargo pays all the administrative expenses of the Plan, except for optional \"Participant Elected Services,\" e.g., qualified domestic relations order services and special handling charges as well as operating expenses that participants are charged based on their investment decisions. (Hogg Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. K at 7; Decl. of Thomas O. Matula ¶ 3, Ex. 1 at 8, Nov. 22, 2024, Docket No. 47 (\"Returns reflect deduction of fund operating expenses. Your Plan may also assess administrative fees which would redu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e is no error to correct. Cf. Parmer v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1301 (D. Minn. 2021) (finding Article III standing where plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendant's maintenance of and investment decisions for the defined contribution retirement plan harmed plan participants); Schave v. CentraCare Health Sys., No. 22-1555, 2023 WL 1071606, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2023) (same). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will grant the motion to dismiss. Because Matula lacks Article III standing, the Court need not analyze whether Matula released his claims or failed to state a c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: polis, MN 55402, for Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas O. Matula, Jr. brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Matula alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo Employee Benefit Review Committee (collectively \"Wells Fargo\") illegally forfeited funds from employees' 401(k) retirement plan by reducing future employer matching contributions instead of alloca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d24715cc-be7c-4b4e-b809-3cfc7143fbb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11079974-11079974","title":"CourtListener opinion 11079974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 1","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F. Supp. 2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): INKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas O. Matula, Jr. brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Matula alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo Employee Benefit Review Committee (collectively \"Wells Fargo\") illegally forfeited funds from employees' 401(k) retirement pla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11080316 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11080316 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 20} In Bulson, a client retained Bulson to represent her in a domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson \"did not take the necessary 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him.\" Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: arranted an actual suspension because he had previously received a fully stayed suspension in a prior disciplinary case. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 22} In Arkow, 2022-Ohio-3209, a client paid the attorney in November 2019 to obtain a QDRO to divide her former husband's retirement account. Id. at ¶ 5. Arkow falsely assured the client that he had submitted her information to a company that would prepare the QDRO and was waiting for it to be processed, delaying the matter for over a year. Id. at ¶ 6-7. Eventually, the client informed Arkow that she was going to file a grievance against him, after which Arkow attempted to mislead the client by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson \"did not take the necessary 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him.\" Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a law"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"902a17f5-fec3-404b-8683-0f8545ca2f88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11080316-11080316","title":"CourtListener opinion 11080316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: o Ryan's securing a divorce decree for Smith and did not include postdecree work, such as orders to divide marital property. {¶ 6} On October 13, 2017, the domestic-relations court issued the divorce decree. In the decree, the court awarded Smith half of the marital portion of her former husband's interest in his Ohio Public Employees Retirement (\"OPERS\") account. However, Smith could not access her share of that account until the domestic-relations court entered a division of property order (\"DOPO\") in the divorce action. {¶ 7} On September 5, 2018, Smith sent a text message to Ryan requesting that she finalize the DOPO. Rya"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11081383 Extracted reporter citation: 516 F.3d 1095. Docket: 45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11081383 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: class as: 3 All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class 4 Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified domestic 5 relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 6 Retirement Committee during the Class Period. 7 Settlement § 1.46. Class certification requires that a plaintiff satisfy Rule 23(a)'s four 8 requirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: As discussed below, each of these factors is met. 19 a. Adequate Representation 20 First, the Court must determine whether the class representatives and class counsel have 21 adequately represented the class. Counsel has litigated dozens of cases involving retirement plans, 22 including cases involving ERISA violations by healthcare institutions, Secunda Decl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23 demonstrating experience and competence. This is an \"indication that Plaintiff[] ha[s] adequately 24 represented the class.\" Cottle v. Plaid Inc., 340 F.R.D. 356, 376 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (citing In re 25 Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ectly by the Plan fiduciaries, whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan, 21 and whether the Plan suffered losses from the fiduciary breaches – are common to all class 22 members. See Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int'l Pension Fund, No. 14-CV- 23 05596-JST, 2015 WL 5569462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2015) (finding commonality where 24 \"Plaintiffs' challenge . . . entail[ed] consideration of questions applicable to all members of the 25 class as a group, and d[id] not require an inquiry into the actions and circumstances of individual 26 plan participants.\"). Thus, Nado has es"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82c56ab5-61cb-465d-a455-21bcc45f1fac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11081383-11081383","title":"CourtListener opinion 11081383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 F.3d 1095","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 10 JOHN MUIR HEALTH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement in 14 this ERISA putative class action. ECF 46. Because the motion was suitable for decision without 15 oral argument, the Court vacated the motion hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1. 16 Having reviewed the motion and the arguments made therein, as well as the relevant legal 17 authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the following reasons. 18 I."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11085334 Extracted case name: KIM DIXON SMITH v. KEVIN JAY SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 03-C-97-009400 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11085334 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aryland Rule 2-535. Id. at 678-79. Mr. Leadroot, following his divorce, had purchased back a period of his retirement contribution, which he had cashed in to use for work-related moving expenses during his marriage to Ms. Leadroot. Id. at 675. The original qualified domestic relations order in Leadroot included a fractional equation that used the months of marriage for the numerator and total months of service for the denominator. Id. at 676-77. The trial court in Leadroot thus edited the fraction to include the redeemed months for the denominator but did not add back the time to the numerator. 11 Id. The trial court intended for this de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ompute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud, mistake, or irregularity in the 1999 constituted pension order. DIVORCE – MILITARY RETIREMENT – PENSION OR DISABILITY RIGHTS Under state law, an interest in a military retirement plan is marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce to the extent it was earned during the marriage. The retired pay award is the former spouse's marital share of the servicemember's retired pay, and this sum is determined with guidance from the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and the subsequent regulations promulgated by th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Maryland Rule 2-535(a). After thirty days has passed, the trial court may exercise revisory power only in the case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 2-535(b). Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Maryland courts have narrowly defined and strictly interpreted the terms fraud, mistake, and irregularity, in order to ensure the finality of judgments. The trial court erred by modifying the fraction used to compute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b79a82c6-ad77-4cb5-9156-535cfda817e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11085334-11085334","title":"CourtListener opinion 11085334","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-C-97-009400 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service. In re Marriage of Beckman, 800 P. 2d 1376, 1379-80 (Colo. App. 1990) (citing W. Troyan, \"Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions,\" 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)). Therefore, when the military retirement benefit is a result of the combination of active and reserve component service, points are the proper method for calculating the fraction. W. Troyan, \"Procedures for Evaluati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11089246 Docket: 30331 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11089246 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: IS, JUDGE -2- [[Applied Signature 3]] MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE -3- OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30331 JAY M. LOPEZ & CHARLYNE L. ADAMS, Attorneys for Appellant CRAIG M. SAMS, Attorney for Appellee LEWIS, J. {¶ 1} Appellant Douglas Stueve appeals from a qualified domestic relations order issued by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} On March 8, 2023, Appellee Sarah S. Stueve filed a complaint for divorce. According to the complaint, she married Douglas on April 20, 2002, and they had two childr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the division of their assets and liabilities was fair and equitable and that the terms of the decree were in the best interest of the children. No provisions of the decree were read into the record, and neither party testified about how they intended their retirement accounts to be divided. {¶ 7} On September 2, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. Sarah was named the legal custodian and residential parent of the children. \"SECTION VIII: DIVISION OF PROPERTY\" of the divorce decree stated, in relevant part: The parties stipulate that the date of division of assets shall be January 1, 2023"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ate that the date of division of assets shall be January 1, 2023, unless specifically provided otherwise herein. All tangible and intangible personal property belonging to the parties shall be divided between them as follows: ... D. Retirement Plans/Pension Benefits: Husband owns a 401(k) account through Fidelity with an approximate -5- balance of $1,138,666.32 as of January 1, 2023. Wife owns a Fidelity account consisting of a 401(k) and Rollover IRA with an approximate balance of $657,579 as of September 30, 2022. All retirement is marital in nature. The marital portion shall be defined as the time"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e338fa6-5d4d-4d93-941c-9f124fc4df24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11089246-11089246","title":"CourtListener opinion 11089246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30331 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): sets shall be January 1, 2023, unless specifically provided otherwise herein. All tangible and intangible personal property belonging to the parties shall be divided between them as follows: ... D. Retirement Plans/Pension Benefits: Husband owns a 401(k) account through Fidelity with an approximate -5- balance of $1,138,666.32 as of January 1, 2023. Wife owns a Fidelity account consisting of a 401(k) and Rollover IRA with an approximate balance of $657,579 as of September 30, 2022. All retirement is marital in nature. The marital portion shall be defined as the time from April 20, 2002 (Date of Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11093474 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Alarcon. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11093474 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: udicial Retirement System II (JRS II). (Gov. Code, § 75500 et seq.)1 On December 8, 2005, a status-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary credits attributed to Hiramoto's service f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: te accounts as required by Family Code section 2610, subdivision (a); (3) an equal division of his community property interest in the JRS II plan under Family Code section 2610, subdivision (a) requires that he receive the present value of Hiramoto's \"matured pension benefits;\" and (4) Hiramoto violated her spousal fiduciary duty with respect to the division of community property. For the reasons stated below, we are not convinced by MacMaster's contentions on appeal and we will affirm the judgment.2 I. THE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM A. JRS I The Judges Retirement Law (JRS I) was enacted in 1978 and became effective"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tatus-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary credits attributed to Hiramoto's service from the date of marriage to the date of separation would be awarded to MacMaster as the nonmember; (2)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9172a10-0c76-41d4-a47f-cd8982c3a446","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11093474-11093474","title":"CourtListener opinion 11093474","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: uperior Court and became a member of the Judicial Retirement System II (JRS II). (Gov. Code, § 75500 et seq.)1 On December 8, 2005, a status-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary cre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71222e70-87a6-427f-8b00-8fbd35454a28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195","title":"CourtListener opinion 11095195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 So.2d 220","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11095195 Extracted case name: COA THOMAS KEVIN BRASWELL APPELLANT v. LADONNA JO BRASWELL APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Extracted reporter citation: 791 So.2d 220. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11095195 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71222e70-87a6-427f-8b00-8fbd35454a28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195","title":"CourtListener opinion 11095195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 So.2d 220","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71222e70-87a6-427f-8b00-8fbd35454a28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195","title":"CourtListener opinion 11095195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 So.2d 220","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: support, but nothing in alimony. He made no further payments in 2018. In 2019, he made no alimony payments and only one child-support payment. Through July 2020, he paid a total of $4,000 in child support. ¶13. On June 2, 2020, the chancery court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that affirmatively established Ladonna's right to $200,000 of Kevin's PERS deferred 3 In 2018, gross income for the clinic as a whole was $607,278. 5 compensation benefits plan. It further ordered the Plan Administrator to establish a separate account for Ladonna and transfer Ladonna's $200,000 share to that account. ¶14. The chancery court heard t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71222e70-87a6-427f-8b00-8fbd35454a28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195","title":"CourtListener opinion 11095195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 So.2d 220","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lement agreement included Kevin's obligations to transfer ownership of the family home to Ladonna; pay Ladonna $100,000 upon the entry of divorce; pay for the minor child's college education; and that Ladonna receive $200,000 of Kevin's $400,000 deferred PERS retirement account when it became accessible. 2 Ladonna testified that she went to college for less than two years, and that she had worked at a bank doing proofing \"but that was thirty years ago.\" She had applied for work at several banks and as a teacher's assistant without success. She sought no other vocational training. 2 dentist with whom he shared an office buildi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71222e70-87a6-427f-8b00-8fbd35454a28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11095195-11095195","title":"CourtListener opinion 11095195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 So.2d 220","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ut nothing in alimony. He made no further payments in 2018. In 2019, he made no alimony payments and only one child-support payment. Through July 2020, he paid a total of $4,000 in child support. ¶13. On June 2, 2020, the chancery court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that affirmatively established Ladonna's right to $200,000 of Kevin's PERS deferred 3 In 2018, gross income for the clinic as a whole was $607,278. 5 compensation benefits plan. It further ordered the Plan Administrator to establish a separate account for Ladonna and transfer Ladonna's $200,000 share to that account. ¶14. The chancery court heard t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11096166 Extracted case name: CROSS-APPELLEE v. ALISON HOLLISTER OSING APPELLEE. Docket: of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11096166 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gment. On June 28, 2022, the chancellor entered another final judgment that addressed the parties' various Rule 59 motions. The chancellor's June 28, 2022 final judgment incorporated a paragraph from his earlier judgment that had directed Fred to present a qualified domestic relations order to 2 Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994). 3 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). 5 allow Alison to receive one-half of the amount in his retirement account. Unless Fred could \"produce evidence that a different amount exists as of [the date of the parties' divorce on] May 26, 2022[,]\" the chancellor ordered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rce. Both parties filed separate motions to amend or alter the judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59. In his final judgment addressing the parties' Rule 59 motions, the chancellor reaffirmed his prior ruling regarding the division of Fred's retirement account and denied all other requested relief. ¶2. On appeal, Fred argues the chancellor erred (1) by denying his motion to withdraw his consent to an irreconcilable-differences divorce; (2) in dividing the marital estate; and (3) by awarding Alison permanent alimony. On cross-appeal, Alison asserts that the chancellor erred by failing to require Fred to pay fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ¶7. On January 22, 2021, the parties consented to an irreconcilable-differences divorce and agreed to submit for the chancellor's determination the remaining issues of \"[a]limony, child support, visitation, division of assets and debts to include retirement/pension[, a]ttorney[']s fees[,] and back child support to the date . . . the complaint was filed.\" The parties' filing acknowledged their understanding that their consent to the irreconcilable- differences divorce could \"not be withdrawn . . . without leave of the Court after the Court ha[d] commenced any proceeding, including the hearing of any motion or other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fed37a2-c9d4-41fc-92d1-9dd24c88fa7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096166-11096166","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096166","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: June 28, 2022, the chancellor entered another final judgment that addressed the parties' various Rule 59 motions. The chancellor's June 28, 2022 final judgment incorporated a paragraph from his earlier judgment that had directed Fred to present a qualified domestic relations order to 2 Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994). 3 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). 5 allow Alison to receive one-half of the amount in his retirement account. Unless Fred could \"produce evidence that a different amount exists as of [the date of the parties' divorce on] May 26, 2022[,]\" the chancellor ordered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11096720 Extracted reporter citation: 290 S.W.3d 748. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11096720 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: District No. 9 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Plan. At the time of the divorce, he was employed at Firestone. 2 granted Wife's motion and on June 19, 2014, entered a corresponding Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Over six years later, on July 17, 2020, Husband moved to set aside the 2014 Order alleging that the trial court lacked \"proper jurisdiction\" to enter the order and therefore the order was invalid.4 On August 31, 2020, the court denied Husband's motion because Husband consented to the 2014 Order by executing the parties' joint affidavit in support of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ON Introduction In this family court matter, appellant James Kalish (Husband) seeks to set aside a 2014 order nunc pro tunc (the 2014 Order), in which the trial court purported to correct the parties' March 2013 consent judgment's treatment of Husband's pension by granting respondent Gina Kalish (Wife) the entire pension instead of just half as the 2013 judgment had ordered. In her motion seeking the 2014 Order, Wife alleged that the 2013 judgment awarding each party half of the pension was a mere clerical error because the parties intended that she receive the entire pension.1 In support of this assertion, W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: (Mo. App. S.D. 1994). A court abuses its discretion when its judgment or order is against the logic of the circumstances, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and indicates a lack of careful consideration. Id. 3 A QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a pension plan.\" Joyner v. Joyner, 460 S.W.3d 467, 471 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). 4 Husband did not specifically cite to Rule 74.06(b) in his motion to set aside the 2014 Order or his brief. However, based on the language used in the motion, we conclude that Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b84d6442-1fce-4e82-a147-063c2be24fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11096720-11096720","title":"CourtListener opinion 11096720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"290 S.W.3d 748","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: rriage.2 Over a year later, on April 25, 2014, Wife asked the court by way of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the March 2013 judgment to reflect the parties' intent that Wife receive the entirety of Husband's pension along with the plan's pre-retirement survivor benefits. Wife submitted the motion with the parties' joint affidavit stating as much. On May 2, 2014, the court 2 Husband was a participant in the District No. 9 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Plan. At the time of the divorce, he was employed at Firestone. 2 granted Wife's motion and on June 19, 2014, entered a correspo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11097676 Extracted reporter citation: 608 S.W.2d 405. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11097676 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uant to qualified transfer to an IRA or other qualified plan account in [wife]'s name and at the financial institution determined by [wife]. In the event of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is necessary, the [c]ourt shall retain jurisdiction to enter a QDRO to accomplish the intent of this provision[.] [Husband] will pay any fees associated with the division and transfer of the property equalization[.] This transfer shall occur within [thirty] 30 days of the date of dissolution of marriage. (Emphasis added). In September 2020, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) 1 The ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and in the settlement agreement, which are not at issue in this appeal. 2 the intent of which was to pay out the equalization payment to wife. The QDRO stated that wife was entitled to $180,000.00 of husband's vested accrued benefits under his Nationwide Retirement Plan2 as of July 27, 2020. The QDRO, however, did not indicate that a transfer of these funds was to occur within thirty days. Further, the Nationwide Retirement Plan specified in the QDRO was a defined-benefit plan,3 meaning a monthly benefit retirement plan subject to taxes and penalties if withdrawn before age fifty-nine and a half, in this case in October"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nswer out of time, husband filed his answer and counter-petition in December 2019. As part of the dissolution action, husband filed his statement of marital and non-marital assets and debts, listing property including his Charles Schwab securities account, pension plan, and his \"Fidelity 401k.\" In July 2020, wife and husband reached a settlement and filed a joint affidavit requesting dissolution with an attached marital separation and property settlement agreement, and the case was removed from the trial court's docket. On July 27, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. The judgment of dissolu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88284620-29c2-421a-8ee1-b7c197b74c57","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097676-11097676","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"608 S.W.2d 405","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d his answer and counter-petition in December 2019. As part of the dissolution action, husband filed his statement of marital and non-marital assets and debts, listing property including his Charles Schwab securities account, pension plan, and his \"Fidelity 401k.\" In July 2020, wife and husband reached a settlement and filed a joint affidavit requesting dissolution with an attached marital separation and property settlement agreement, and the case was removed from the trial court's docket. On July 27, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. The judgment of dissolution divided the marital prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11097814 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hatch. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11097814 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for \"bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment\" during the proces"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: imited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for \"bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment\" during the processing of class members' individual claims); Chaney v. Gray, 898 S.W.2d 577, 583 (M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r appointing receiver to enforce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for \"bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment\" during t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d9a7708-5340-4d98-9599-a06c52ac0e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11097814-11097814","title":"CourtListener opinion 11097814","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: gment. 838 S.W.2d at 92. For other examples illustrating the range of post-judgment rulings which have been treated as \"special orders after final judgment,\" see, e.g., Wilson v. Wilson, 640 S.W.3d 136, 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (ordering seeking to enforce property division in earlier dissolution decree was a \"special order after final judgment\"); St. Louis Bank v. Kohn, 517 S.W.3d 666, 672 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (post-judgment order appointing receiver to enforce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7541eeaf-9101-4409-ba8f-e29a2c6ff371","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190","title":"CourtListener opinion 11099190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"87370-9-I/4 The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"386 F.3d 1306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11099190 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Petelle. Extracted reporter citation: 386 F.3d 1306. Docket: 87370-9-I/4 The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11099190 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7541eeaf-9101-4409-ba8f-e29a2c6ff371","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190","title":"CourtListener opinion 11099190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"87370-9-I/4 The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"386 F.3d 1306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7541eeaf-9101-4409-ba8f-e29a2c6ff371","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190","title":"CourtListener opinion 11099190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"87370-9-I/4 The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"386 F.3d 1306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the Marriage of: No. 87370-9-I LINGJUN STEVE HOU, DIVISION ONE Respondent, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION JIE YAO HOU, Appellant. SMITH, J. — An arbitrator directed Jie Hou to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) splitting her Public Employees' Retirement System Plan 2 (PERS 2) account with her ex-spouse, Steve Hou. In this appeal, Jie1 challenges the trial court's orders confirming the arbitrator's award, denying Jie's motion to vacate the award, entering a QDRO pursuant to the award, and awarding attorney fees to Steve. She also challenges the trial court's d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7541eeaf-9101-4409-ba8f-e29a2c6ff371","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190","title":"CourtListener opinion 11099190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"87370-9-I/4 The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"386 F.3d 1306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eiving payments if Jie died before he did. By contrast, under a split-type QDRO, Steve could begin receiving payments once he reached retirement age, see WAC 415-02-520(3)(i), and \"[w]hen [Jie] or [Steve] dies, there will be no impact to the other person's retirement account because the accounts are independent from one another.\" WAC 415-02- 520(3)(h). Steve represented that Jie was insisting on an interest-type QDRO, and he requested that the matter be submitted to binding arbitration. 3 No. 87370-9-I/4 The trial court determined that \"this is a dispute that clearly falls within the broad language of the binding arbit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7541eeaf-9101-4409-ba8f-e29a2c6ff371","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11099190-11099190","title":"CourtListener opinion 11099190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"87370-9-I/4 The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"386 F.3d 1306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: fer to them by the names they used in their declarations and correspondence below. No. 87370-9-I/2 agreement). The CR 2A agreement provided, with regard to the parties' respective pensions, 4. Pensions: The community interest in Husband's City of Seattle Pension shall be awarded 50% to husband and 50% to wife. Husband shall pay the cost of preparing a QDRO to effectuate this award. 5. The community interest in Wife's PERS II Pension shall be awarded 50% to wife and 50% to husband. Wife shall pay the cost of preparing a QDRO to effectuate this award. The CR 2A Agreement also provided, \"Each party agrees and st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5843422-9236-4c9f-9046-19ff98452cbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067","title":"CourtListener opinion 11101067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"51857 IDAHO STATE BAR","extracted_reporter_citation":"522 P.3d 1236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11101067 Extracted reporter citation: 522 P.3d 1236. Docket: 51857 IDAHO STATE BAR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11101067 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5843422-9236-4c9f-9046-19ff98452cbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067","title":"CourtListener opinion 11101067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"51857 IDAHO STATE BAR","extracted_reporter_citation":"522 P.3d 1236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5843422-9236-4c9f-9046-19ff98452cbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067","title":"CourtListener opinion 11101067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"51857 IDAHO STATE BAR","extracted_reporter_citation":"522 P.3d 1236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 8, 2020, the district court granted Judy's summary judgment motion and entered a $90,633.83 judgment against Jeff; however, that amount was later amended to $106,468.25. On July 15, 2020, Judy filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to partially satisfy the judgment she had obtained against Jeff for unpaid spousal support. The funds sought by the QDRO were held in Jeff's retirement account managed by Rudd & Company, PLLC, a regional accounting firm. At that same time, roughly 65% of Jeff's wages were being garnished to pay the outstanding spousal support. On September 9, 2020, Jeff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5843422-9236-4c9f-9046-19ff98452cbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11101067-11101067","title":"CourtListener opinion 11101067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"51857 IDAHO STATE BAR","extracted_reporter_citation":"522 P.3d 1236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ended to $106,468.25. On July 15, 2020, Judy filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to partially satisfy the judgment she had obtained against Jeff for unpaid spousal support. The funds sought by the QDRO were held in Jeff's retirement account managed by Rudd & Company, PLLC, a regional accounting firm. At that same time, roughly 65% of Jeff's wages were being garnished to pay the outstanding spousal support. On September 9, 2020, Jeff filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the pending civil case; however, the bankruptcy was subsequently dismissed on December 10, 2020. While Oleson did not represent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcc07d68-29bd-420e-b7b2-aa49af3b1fe5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 165","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102129 Extracted reporter citation: 444 P.3d 165. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102129 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcc07d68-29bd-420e-b7b2-aa49af3b1fe5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 165","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcc07d68-29bd-420e-b7b2-aa49af3b1fe5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 165","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l Thomas Iozzo Jr., pro se, Round Rock, Texas, Appellant. Amanda M. Lancaster, Turnagain Law, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION The superior court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in a divorce action awarding a portion of the ex-husband's \"disposable military retired pay\" to the ex-wife upon his retirement. Seven years later the ex-husband retired, and the ex-wife began receiving her portion of his retirement pay. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The following year the ex-husband was approved for a form of milita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcc07d68-29bd-420e-b7b2-aa49af3b1fe5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 165","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: former spouse's share of retirement payments caused by a veteran's post-divorce waiver.\"). 23 Cf. Jones v. Jones, 505 P.3d 224, 233 (Alaska 2022) (upholding divorce agreement that \"expressly provide[d] for indemnification in the event that [the ex- wife's] retirement benefits [were] affected by [the ex-husband's] receipt of disability pay\"). 24 581 U.S. at 221. 25 10 U.S.C. § 1414 (2001); 10 U.S.C. § 1413a (2002); see also Guerrero v. Guerrero, 362 P.3d 432, 439 (Alaska 2015) (\"[CRSC] allows veterans disabled in combat to receive compensation in lieu of retirement payments up to the amount waived to receive VA disability be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dcc07d68-29bd-420e-b7b2-aa49af3b1fe5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102129-11102129","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 165","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ozzo Jr., pro se, Round Rock, Texas, Appellant. Amanda M. Lancaster, Turnagain Law, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION The superior court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in a divorce action awarding a portion of the ex-husband's \"disposable military retired pay\" to the ex-wife upon his retirement. Seven years later the ex-husband retired, and the ex-wife began receiving her portion of his retirement pay. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The following year the ex-husband was approved for a form of milita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102146 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he time 1 The parties have two minor children, but custody is not at issue in this appeal. -2- 2066 of separation\" and Amber's limited ability to work due to injuries and childcare needs further diminished the business's value. The court valued Amber's retirement account at $131,452.73. Finding credible Amber's testimony that she would need to liquidate the account in order to pay her attorney, the court also awarded her \"the debt related to the tax consequences of cashing out\" the account: ‑$44,693.92. The court found that Joe violated its initial domestic relations standing order when he failed to renew health insurance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): onsequences are not a permissible consideration when the superior court values and distributes property, it is within the court's discretion to account for a tax liability that appears inevitable. 17 In Dodson v. Dodson the superior court awarded one spouse's 401(k) plan to the other spouse in the course of divorce proceedings, but discounted the value of the plan to account for taxes the receiving spouse would have to pay to draw funds from the plan. 18 On appeal the other spouse, citing Oberhansly, argued that the court erred in its valuation by discounting the plan's value by this \"hypothetical\" tax consequence. 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: violate the order, the court could \"order sanctions,\" including fines. The trial court has discretion to impose appropriate sanctions when a party violates a domestic relations standing order. 27 We see no error in the court's conclusion that Joe violated the domestic relations order in this case when he failed to add Amber to his new insurance policy. Nor do we see any error in the court's exercise of its discretion by requiring Joe to reimburse Amber for the medical costs she incurred as a result of his violation of the order. CONCLUSION We VACATE the superior court's property division and REMAND with instructions to value the marit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06b7a183-27a4-44a1-886b-48cde4dde3ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102146-11102146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102146","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: and Pate, Justices. [Henderson, Justice, not participating.] INTRODUCTION A husband appeals various aspects of the superior court's property division as well as the court's determination that he violated a domestic relations standing order. We vacate the property division because the marital home was not valued correctly. However, we affirm the superior court's valuation of the remaining property at issue. We also affirm the court's finding that the husband violated the domestic relations standing order. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Joseph Riggs III (Joe) and Amber Mason-Riggs married"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: deemed the asset associated with significant debt as Michael's separate property and \"sole liability.\" 9 Michael used a year-end bonus to secretly purchase a home for himself while the divorce was pending, which violated the court's orders. -7- 2049 4. QDRO Following trial and the court's decision on record, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 90.1(g).10 The order recognized Kathijo's right to receive $74,360.19 from Michael's 401(k) Savings Plan in lieu of an equalization payment. However, after Kathijo filed the present appeal, the court stayed enforcem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ncluded testimony from six witnesses before it issued a decision on record in June 2022.7 It awarded Kathijo 60% of the value of the marital estate, mostly consisting of the cash she received from the sale of the marital home and from her portion of Michael's 401(k). It also declined to award Kathijo long-term spousal support or rehabilitative alimony, and noted our precedent supporting its award of cash in lieu of this support. 8 Relevant to this appeal, the parties presented evidence about, and the court decided, several additional property-related issues. 6 Although Kathijo argues the court erred by imposing Rul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ancel the insurance policy but merely divided the policy into two separate policies. Michael filed a cross-motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 11. 4 The court denied Kathijo's motion because it found Michael had not violated the standing domestic relations order. Instead Michael had \"simply removed his own vehicle and the children's vehicles from the policy so that Ms. Jolin would not have to pay for them during the interim pendency of this case.\" The court also noted Kathijo's attorney \"made no independent effort to investigate the claims before filing the motion as required by Alaska Civil Rule 11(b).\"5 Since the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e1ea827-0806-4a37-b022-6cb3649f2902","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102162-11102162","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION Following divorce proceedings, one party appeals various aspects of the superior court's division of marital property. Observing no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the court's property division order in all respects. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Michael and Kathijo Jolin married in January 2003,1 after dating intermittently for several years. They raised four children together. Michael filed for divorce in September 2021.2 A. Interim Proceedings Between Michael's filing of his divorce complaint and the ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102172 Extracted reporter citation: 444 P.3d 180. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102172 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n order once again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylor's lost share of the federal retirement payments that Faris received between the couple"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: five-day divorce trial between December 2015 and May 2016, and issued an order once again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r over 40 years of marriage. The superior court divided the couple's property during divorce proceedings in 2017, and the wife then appealed. We affirmed the superior court in all but one respect, remanding for the court to conduct a new recapture analysis of pension payments received by the wife between the couple's separation and the 2017 trial. After the court conducted its recapture analysis and property distribution on remand the wife has once again appealed. She * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. challenges numerous points, but concedes she is not appealing the court's recent recapture analysis and cor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ed81352-1e4f-4e1c-9587-e11def3a1169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102172-11102172","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102172","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"444 P.3d 180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ce again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylor's lost share of the federal retirement payments that Faris received between the couple"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102220 Extracted reporter citation: 158 P.3d 817. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102220 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at day, but he still failed to respond. The clerk entered default on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and QDROs dividing Martha and Pablo's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t he still failed to respond. The clerk entered default on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c5909d0-ea75-4c45-aa81-e675add71b37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102220-11102220","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"158 P.3d 817","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: iled to respond to his wife's divorce complaint and summons for more than five months. The court entered default against the husband, dissolved the marriage, and divided the couple's property. The then-ex-husband retained an attorney and moved to overturn the property division, asserting that he had limited English proficiency and had not understood the divorce paperwork. He also claimed that the * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. property division was inequitable. After four days of evidentiary hearings, the court denied the ex-husband's motion to overturn the property division. The ex-husband appeals, contending th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102308 Extracted reporter citation: 244 P.3d 1121. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102308 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ording in which he described the agreement, provision by provision, and elicited the parties' oral consent to it. In sum, the parties agreed to the allocation of the residences, rental properties, chiropractic business, and other major assets. They agreed to \"QDRO marital -2- 1901 portions of retirement [accounts plus] gains [and] losses.\"1 They divided their personal property as shown on a separate spreadsheet, and Greg agreed to make an equalization payment to Marie. When the parties next appeared in court they informed the judge that they disagreed about the settlement's terms, particularly the QDRO requiremen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: roposed settlement agreement that the court adopted over the wife's objections. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The wife contends that the documents adopted by the court fail to reflect the parties' actual agreement on three issues: division of retirement accounts, allocation of personal property, and the date of separation. She also contends that she is entitled to attorney's fees for the husband's discovery violations; that the superior court erroneously failed to enforce an order requiring joint filing of one year's tax returns; and that the court abused its discretion by requiring her to share the cost of an acc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ation, and that Greg continued to withhold discovery related to his assets. 1 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is \"any judgment, decree, or order\" \"made pursuant to a State domestic relations law\" \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to\" a retirement plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). -3- 1901 The court signed the divorce decree and Greg's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating Greg's version of the settlement agreement. A day later it signed an order requiring the parties to hire an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee165235-f3bc-4751-b3fe-661c98c23bb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102308-11102308","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102308","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"244 P.3d 1121","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tion to use QDROs on all the retirement accounts, that Greg's property spreadsheet differed from the one used at mediation, that the decree had the wrong date of separation, and that Greg continued to withhold discovery related to his assets. 1 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is \"any judgment, decree, or order\" \"made pursuant to a State domestic relations law\" \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to\" a retirement plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). -3- 1901 The court signed the divorce decree and Greg's proposed find"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102472 Extracted reporter citation: 205 P.3d 342. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102472 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: J. Pickard, pro se, Wasilla, Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION An ex-husband appeals the superior court's denial of his objections to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which distributed marital property pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. Because the superior court failed to appropriately allocate the costs of maintaining survivor's benefits and life insurance after the husband is either terminated * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. from employment or retires, we remand for the appropriate a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: marital years of [Donald's] retirement . . . due to the fact that this was ‘bought back' during the marriage using marital funds.\" The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law also defined the \"marital share\" as beginning on \"the date of inception of [Donald's retirement plan] to the date of separation.\" Donald filed objections to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October 2017.1 Cynthia filed a proposed QDRO for Donald's FERS pension and sent him a copy in November 2017. Less than a week later, the superior court signed the Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Decree of Divorce, and the 1 Although th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: onclusion of the hearing after making several corrections during the hearing at the parties' request. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated that Cynthia would receive 50% of the marital share of Donald's Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) pension \"with full survivor's benefits, and [life insurance].\" The \"marital share\" was defined to include \"the pre-marital years of [Donald's] retirement . . . due to the fact that this was ‘bought back' during the marriage using marital funds.\" The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law also defined the \"marital share\" as beginning on \"the date of inception of [D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93f5171c-8bcc-4fcf-84ce-751f80e45f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102472-11102472","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 342","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , pro se, Wasilla, Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION An ex-husband appeals the superior court's denial of his objections to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which distributed marital property pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. Because the superior court failed to appropriately allocate the costs of maintaining survivor's benefits and life insurance after the husband is either terminated * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. from employment or retires, we remand for the appropriate a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102504 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102504 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or all expenses associated with his UPS lawsuits, and if he recovered any money as a result of them, he would retain all of the recovered sums. Regarding Douglas's UPS retirement accounts, the court stated that the marital portion would be divided equally by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finally the superior court considered Michelle's request for attorney's fees. It reasoned that Douglas's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was \"unnecessary and vexatious.\" It found that his transfer of title to the Anchorage house, in violation of the court's order, was also vexatious. Because this conduct \"clearly increased [Michelle's] at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: expenses stemming from the suits. The court assigned to Douglas \"sole[] responsib[ility]\" for all expenses associated with his UPS lawsuits, and if he recovered any money as a result of them, he would retain all of the recovered sums. Regarding Douglas's UPS retirement accounts, the court stated that the marital portion would be divided equally by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finally the superior court considered Michelle's request for attorney's fees. It reasoned that Douglas's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was \"unnecessary and vexatious.\" It found that his transfer of title to the Anchorage house, in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 3. Sale of Anchorage house While the case was pending, in June 2015 Douglas transferred title of the Anchorage house to his adult son. This transfer was apparently done without Michelle's or the superior court's consent, in violation of the court's initial domestic relations order issued at the commencement of the action. After Michelle brought the transfer to the court's attention, the court issued an order nullifying the transfer and instructing that the Anchorage house be sold and all proceeds kept in a trust account pending trial.2 4. Property division trial and order Judge Olson's noncriminal caseload was administratively reas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4e86492-41af-400a-b677-1b8476414b1d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102504-11102504","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102504","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: not participating.] I. INTRODUCTION The superior court divided the property of a couple during divorce proceedings. It also awarded the ex-wife $1,000 in attorney's fees on the basis that some of the ex-husband's litigation conduct was vexatious. After the property division order was issued, the ex-husband moved to recuse the superior court judge on the basis of * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. alleged bias and also challenged the process through which the case had been assigned to that judge. The ex-husband — now self-represented — appeals the denial of the recusal motion, contests the superior court's personal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102583 Extracted reporter citation: 319 P.3d 219. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102583 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pro se, Union, New Jersey, Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained fro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e72b74b4-8053-4a18-bfae-679377f48f53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102583-11102583","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"319 P.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecting the value of the three different component"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b64abb63-7560-422f-b43d-f5b53e074c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"56 P.3d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102712 Extracted case name: J.F.E. v. J.A.S. Extracted reporter citation: 56 P.3d 9. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102712 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b64abb63-7560-422f-b43d-f5b53e074c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"56 P.3d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b64abb63-7560-422f-b43d-f5b53e074c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"56 P.3d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ation loan against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of findings and analysis to the contrary that the superior court determined Michele's post-separation loan was separate debt. We are unable to find a qualified domestic relations order in the record before us, and therefore are unable to determine whether the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b64abb63-7560-422f-b43d-f5b53e074c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"56 P.3d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ney's fees, and contends he should be placed in the same position. This assertion was not specifically raised in the superior court, and with one limited exception, we do not address it here. The exception is Michele's $25,000 post-separation loan against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b64abb63-7560-422f-b43d-f5b53e074c6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102712-11102712","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"56 P.3d 9","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of findings and analysis to the contrary that the superior court determined Michele's post-separation loan was separate debt. We are unable to find a qualified domestic relations order in the record before us, and therefore are unable to determine whether the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102737 Extracted reporter citation: 240 P.3d 1225. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102737 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child support arrearage, Daniel sought to modify t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: I. INTRODUCTION Daniel Brown and Corriene Demientieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child support arrearage, Daniel sought to modify t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbce7b6-c5b6-456c-badf-e413543b0988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102737-11102737","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"240 P.3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n and Corriene Demientieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child suppor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11102740 Extracted reporter citation: 288 P.3d 1289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: were represented by counsel during their divorce proceedings. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that addressed Deborah's account with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), a marital asset then worth $15,278. Through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the agreement gave Rudolph a fifty-percent ownership of the PERS monthly benefit. The divorce decree, along with the accompanying property settlement agreement and QDRO, was issued in March 1995. In November 2011 Deborah, through her guardians, filed a pro se petition to reopen the divorce case under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5). In her petition and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION Rudolph and Deborah Isturis divorced 18 years ago. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that gave Rudolph fifty percent of Deborah's pension benefits, which he would receive in monthly payments. In 2011 Deborah, now suffering from serious mental disabilities and residing in an assisted-living facility, petitioned through her legal guardians to reopen the divorce proceeding under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5), which allows for relief from judgment if, as relevant here, * Entered under Appellate R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sented by counsel during their divorce proceedings. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that addressed Deborah's account with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), a marital asset then worth $15,278. Through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the agreement gave Rudolph a fifty-percent ownership of the PERS monthly benefit. The divorce decree, along with the accompanying property settlement agreement and QDRO, was issued in March 1995. In November 2011 Deborah, through her guardians, filed a pro se petition to reopen the divorce case under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5). In her petition and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6de6788-e3b2-4f00-90cb-d15076b624b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11102740-11102740","title":"CourtListener opinion 11102740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"288 P.3d 1289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 2 P.3d 998, 1005 (Alaska 2011) (\"Other than a Civil Rule 77(k) motion for reconsideration, which must be made within ten days of the court's order, an Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) motion provides the only available means for seeking relief from a final judgment of property division.\" (citing Lowe v. Lowe, 817 P.2d 453, 456 (Alaska 1991))). In her superior court briefing, Deborah explicitly waived claims under subsections (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the rule. She waived claims under subsection (b)(6) by failing to raise them. -3- 1462 Civil Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief from a judgment when it is \"no longer equitable that the judgmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11105234 Extracted case name: LLC v. THF. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1094 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11105234 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 4. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserved for her. The MSA specified the manner in which Wife could go to the former marital residence to obtain those items including that the retrieval be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of settlement conferences culminating with one on February 29, 2024, at which the parties entered into the MSA.1 1 A Divorce Decree was entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserved for her. The MSA specified the manner in which Wife could go to the former marital residence to obtain those items including that the retrie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecc32d0d-14e9-40ea-a1b4-488ce948e6f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11105234-11105234","title":"CourtListener opinion 11105234","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1094 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: married in 1979 and separated in December 2018. Wife initiated this divorce action in September 2022, which included a count seeking equitable distribution. In November 2022, Cindy Conley was appointed as the Divorce Hearing Officer (DHO) to address the equitable distribution claims. She held a number of settlement conferences culminating with one on February 29, 2024, at which the parties entered into the MSA.1 1 A Divorce Decree was entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11112240 Docket: 368917 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11112240 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ions concerning the monthly payments are consistent with the monthly amount distributed from the marital portion of plaintiff's firefighter pension. Based on this, defendant argues the individuals in charge of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will rely on the trial court's directive and only include the marital portion of the firefighter pension for purposes of division. As a result, defendant argues the trial court need not revisit this issue on remand. Although defendant's argument appears to be supported by the QDRO entered by the trial court, a portion of the judgment of divorce holds that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: in the discretion of the circuit court.\" Boonstra v Boonstra, 209 Mich App 558, 563; 531 NW2d 777 (1995). Concerning plaintiff's retirement assets, the judgment of divorce stated: Plaintiff and defendant shall equally divide Plaintiff's City of Ypsilanti Retirement benefits and Plaintiff's police pension. Plaintiff is currently in \"pay status\" and has been since prior to the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. . . . The marital portion shall be determined to be the date of the marriage (12/08/1990) through the date of the filing of the Complaint for Divorce (02/14/2020). The effective date of division shall be December 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: buted to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property.\" See id. at 494-495 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff first challenges the trial court's decision relating to his pensions. There is no dispute that plaintiff received a pension from working in a police department from 1978 to 1982 as well as a pension for working as a Ypsilanti firefighter from 1987 to 2012. Nor is there any dispute that \"pension benefits are assets to be considered part of the marital estate subject to distribution in the discretion of the circuit court.\" Boonstra v Boonstra, 209 Mich App 558, 563; 531 NW2d 777 ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d911aa1-7812-4ddc-ae66-519560c20a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11112240-11112240","title":"CourtListener opinion 11112240","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"368917 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 533 (2010). B. ANALYSIS The purpose of a divorce judgment is to fix the property rights and interests of the parties. Westgate v Westgate, 291 Mich 18, 28; 288 NW 860 (1939). \"The goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceeding is to reach an equitable distribution of property in light of all the circumstances.\" Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420, 423; 664 NW2d 231 (2003). \"A division of property in a divorce action need not be equal, but it must be equitable.\" Jansen v Jansen, 205 Mich App 169, 171; 517 NW2d 275 (1994). When dividing property, the following factors are to be considered wherever they are relevant to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11113719 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of KELLEY and BRUCE. Extracted reporter citation: 79 Cal.App.5th 283. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11113719 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d a response in which he stated: \"As the Court knows, pursuant to the Judgment . . . , the Court ordered the parties to equally divide the Motorola 401(k) and the Principal Life IRA. I proposed . . . that we agree to hire Moon, Swartz, and Madden to prepare a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] and equally divide their engagement fee as ordered by the Court. . . . I have written both Plan Administrators. Principal Life has asked both parties to conduct follow up, which I intend to do. I only ask that [Widrin] cooperate with the finalization of the orders dividing the plans.\" Years later, after Powers began to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: from $1,000 monthly to zero, permanently terminated jurisdiction over spousal support, and denied Powers's request for reimbursement for several years of spousal support \"overpayment.\" And a June 26, 2024, order made certain directives for the division of two retirement accounts, held in Powers's name but agreed to be community property, and imposed monetary sanctions on Powers. In his opening brief, Powers makes 17 arguments challenging these three postjudgment orders. We will modify the July 3, 2023, order by striking the portion granting Widrin's request for $14,466 for media duplication and remand the matter for a new determi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Report,\" identified by Powers as the Propertizer, is included in Powers's appendix. It includes the equalizing payment from Powers to Widrin in the amount of $185,476. Neither the tentative decision nor the statement of decision refer by name to the Motorola 401(k) account or the Principal Life IRA, both of which were retirement accounts in Powers's name and both of which are at issue in this appeal. Nor does the tentative decision or statement of decision address the parties' photo and video collection which is also at issue here. The 2015 Judgment The trial court entered its judgment in August 2015, incorporating"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7a4d805-4722-462f-a8ee-7dbd353d2d11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11113719-11113719","title":"CourtListener opinion 11113719","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"79 Cal.App.5th 283","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: which he stated: \"As the Court knows, pursuant to the Judgment . . . , the Court ordered the parties to equally divide the Motorola 401(k) and the Principal Life IRA. I proposed . . . that we agree to hire Moon, Swartz, and Madden to prepare a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] and equally divide their engagement fee as ordered by the Court. . . . I have written both Plan Administrators. Principal Life has asked both parties to conduct follow up, which I intend to do. I only ask that [Widrin] cooperate with the finalization of the orders dividing the plans.\" Years later, after Powers began to represent himself, Widrin's attorney"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11114585 Extracted reporter citation: 108 A.3d 913. Docket: 993 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11114585 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urt. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [(\"Pension Plan\" or \"Plan\")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order ([\"]QDRO[\"]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further acknowledge and agree they shall execute any documents . . . that may be required from time to time to accomplish the purpose of this paragraph. . . . 2.5 INVESTEMENTS/BANK ACCOUNTS It is agreed that Husband shall tran"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ne 13, 2024 order as the final order for the purpose of this appeal. -2- J-S20016-25 in the Pennsylvania Divorce Code of 1980, as amended [(\"Divorce Code\")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [(\"Pension Plan\" or \"Plan\")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order ([\"]QDRO[\"]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties furt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Divorce Code\")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [(\"Pension Plan\" or \"Plan\")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order ([\"]QDRO[\"]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further acknowledge and agree they shall execute any documents . . . that may be required from time to time to accomplish the purpose of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1572e34-fce3-46f7-bd20-0a8c960e007c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11114585-11114585","title":"CourtListener opinion 11114585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"993 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"108 A.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the final order for the purpose of this appeal. -2- J-S20016-25 in the Pennsylvania Divorce Code of 1980, as amended [(\"Divorce Code\")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [(\"Pension Plan\" or \"Plan\")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order ([\"]QDRO[\"]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further ackn"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11115608 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11115608 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: echtel, Esq. 2 During his employment, Husband obtained retirement accounts in the form of a Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") and a Federal Employees Retirement Systems (\"FERS\") account. Many retirement accounts are distributed in equitable distribution through a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), but federal accounts are distributed through a COAP. 1 There is an FBI TSP, which is the Respondent's [Husband's] through his employment. That is awarded to him, subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the Petitioner [Wife] awarding her one-half (1/2) of the amount allocated therein for the period of the marriage, which is March 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2008, and included the following directives regarding Husband's retirement account(s): 1 Husband is represented by James M. Cagle, Esq. Wife is represented by Alyson A. Dotson, Esq., and Michelle L. Bechtel, Esq. 2 During his employment, Husband obtained retirement accounts in the form of a Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") and a Federal Employees Retirement Systems (\"FERS\") account. Many retirement accounts are distributed in equitable distribution through a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), but federal accounts are distributed through a COAP. 1 There is an FBI TSP, which is the Respondent's [Husband's] through his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ys following the conclusion of the objection period. If objections are received, the court shall enter an order and findings no later than ten days after the receipt of the objections. 2 percent of Husband's annuities, a marital portion of any disability pension available, a cost- of-living adjustment, and survivor benefits, none of which were addressed in the parties' divorce order. On June 15, 2024, Husband filed objections to the COAP arguing that Wife allowed the marital home's foreclosure; his wages were garnished due to Wife's failure to pay her half of the mortgage payments; Wife had her nursing license susp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37f14880-d702-4589-8f3b-1ee60db90bca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115608-11115608","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): act and conclusions of law which are summarized as follows: • Husband's FERS account was a defined benefit retirement4 plan with the monthly benefit determined based upon the highest three years of earnings. 4 There are two types of retirement accounts—defined contribution and defined benefit plans. A defined contribution plan provides benefits solely upon the monetary contributions to the plan by the employee and sometimes by the employer; these plans grow by active appreciation with each contribution and are simple to divide. A defined benefit plan provides benefits based on other criteria, such as years of employment, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5302a39c-903b-4a12-8866-edb6e3565bd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11115616 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11115616 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5302a39c-903b-4a12-8866-edb6e3565bd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5302a39c-903b-4a12-8866-edb6e3565bd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rther proceedings is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Burgess and Ms. Burgess were married in 1982 and divorced in 2004. As part of the divorce, the family court awarded Ms. Burgess a portion of Mr. Burgess' PERS annuity. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered by the family court on June 25, 2004. By separate letters dated October 6, 2004, the Board informed petitioners that the QDRO had been received. PERS is governed by the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Act (the \"Act\"). See W. Va. Code §§ 5-10-1 to -55. Mr. Burgess was employed by the West Virginia Department of Highways (\"DOH"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5302a39c-903b-4a12-8866-edb6e3565bd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11115616-11115616","title":"CourtListener opinion 11115616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eedings is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Burgess and Ms. Burgess were married in 1982 and divorced in 2004. As part of the divorce, the family court awarded Ms. Burgess a portion of Mr. Burgess' PERS annuity. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered by the family court on June 25, 2004. By separate letters dated October 6, 2004, the Board informed petitioners that the QDRO had been received. PERS is governed by the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Act (the \"Act\"). See W. Va. Code §§ 5-10-1 to -55. Mr. Burgess was employed by the West Virginia Department of Highways (\"DOH"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11116367 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of IVONNE G. and ARMANDO E. NAVARRO. Extracted reporter citation: 66 Cal.App.5th 583. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11116367 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he full amount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal authorities or citations to the appellate record. Insofar as she purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the challenged order, she has waived her argument by failing to set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ne F. Lopez for Respondent. I INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution proceeding, Ivonne G. Navarro appeals a family court order awarding her ex-husband, Armando E. Navarro, the full amount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal au"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal authorities or citations to the appellate record. Insofar as she purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the challenged order, she has waived her argument by failing to set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"847d3e84-a9a4-4897-9be9-f137c96f6535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116367-11116367","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116367","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"66 Cal.App.5th 583","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: On August 12, 2020, Ivonne filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. On July 6, 2023, the family court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marital status only. On October 25, 2023, the court held a one-day trial on reserved issues, including property division, spousal support, and attorney fees. On November 30, 2023, the court entered a judgment on the reserved issues: • The court found that Ivonne breached the fiduciary duty she owed to Armando by transferring half of the community's interest in the marital residence to a third party without Armando's consent. The court 1 We refer to the parties by their fir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb344c83-31fb-4bb5-91df-74e464048dd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-580","extracted_reporter_citation":"849 N.E.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11116418 Extracted reporter citation: 849 N.E.2d 773. Docket: 24A-DN-580. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11116418 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb344c83-31fb-4bb5-91df-74e464048dd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-580","extracted_reporter_citation":"849 N.E.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb344c83-31fb-4bb5-91df-74e464048dd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-580","extracted_reporter_citation":"849 N.E.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: [Wife] $5,600 in pension back pay. He's going to repay that all to her in 12 months, and moving forward from today, which is the date of the decree, the pension will be divided 50/50, evenly, between the two of them. And [Wife's counsel] will prepare the QDRO for DFAS and submit it, and we would just like a minute entry – or [Wife's counsel] and I will submit an agreed to entry for today that will not require clients' signatures – it will just be an agreed to entry. Id. at 65. Wife's counsel stated: I think that covers everything. I think that [Husband] has also determined that he'll just make even paymen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb344c83-31fb-4bb5-91df-74e464048dd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11116418-11116418","title":"CourtListener opinion 11116418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24A-DN-580","extracted_reporter_citation":"849 N.E.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 580 | August 7, 2024 Page 1 of 15 Brown, Judge. [1] Dalton E. Griffith (\"Husband\") appeals from the trial court's decree of dissolution and claims the court erred in denying his request to repudiate his settlement agreement regarding the division of his pension. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] Husband and Dawn M. Griffith (\"Wife\") were married in 1998. In 2019, Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. The parties participated in mediation in April 2022 which resulted in an agreement resolving all matters except for the division of Husband's military pension. On August 21, 2023, the cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11117065 Extracted reporter citation: 189 P.3d 1056. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11117065 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tation Jennifer Sandvik and Ian Frazier married in 1999 and separated in 2020. In 2022 the parties reached a settlement agreement. They agreed that the marital portion of Frazier's Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) Pension Plan would be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with 50% survivorship to Sandvik.1 After reaching this agreement, the parties began working with the ARRC retirement plan administrators to fashion a suitable QDRO. This is where problems arose, because the plan's terms could not accommodate the parties' agreement as it related to the survivor benefits. The plan only allowed for three survivor-bene"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the marital portion of Frazier's Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) Pension Plan would be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with 50% survivorship to Sandvik.1 After reaching this agreement, the parties began working with the ARRC retirement plan administrators to fashion a suitable QDRO. This is where problems arose, because the plan's terms could not accommodate the parties' agreement as it related to the survivor benefits. The plan only allowed for three survivor-benefits options. The first was to name no survivor beneficiary. Neither party wanted this. The second was to treat Sandvik as Frazier"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nchorage, for Appellee Ian Frazier. Before: Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices [Maassen, Chief Justice, not participating]. HENDERSON, Justice. INTRODUCTION Divorcing spouses agreed to equally divide the marital portion of the husband's pension plan and the associated survivor benefits. But the plan's terms prevented the parties from dividing the survivor benefits as they had agreed. The parties thereafter submitted the issue to the superior court. The husband offered to purchase life insurance in the event that the court selected an option under the plan that had the potential to divest the wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd8f78c6-8f9e-4598-92f8-2a1fbc1772e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11117065-11117065","title":"CourtListener opinion 11117065","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"189 P.3d 1056","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: agreed to divide the marital portion of the plan equally 2 This interest would be \"a share of each monthly preretirement death benefit payment, determined by multiplying the monthly payment by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of months the Alternate Payee was married to the Participant during which the Participant accrued service credit and the denominator of which is the number of months of credited service accrued by the Participant at death.\" -3- 7782 by QDRO \"with a 50% survivorship to [Sandvik].\" Both parties also recognized that this was not possible under the terms of the plan. Frazier maintained"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11120317 Extracted reporter citation: 556 U.S. 662. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11120317 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 4th 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2023). The Court also considers the annuity contracts, which are not 27 attached to the FAC, under the incorporation by reference doctrine. See Louisiana Mun. Police 1 Moffat's Divorce From Taka, Marriage to Nilsen, and Issuance of \"QDRO\" 2 Moffat and Taka divorced in 1999. See FAC ¶ 34. They entered into a court-approved 3 Marital Settlement Agreement under which Taka waived all rights to the TIAA-CREF annuities. 4 See id. ¶¶ 34-35. 5 Moffat and Nilsen married in 2003. See FAC ¶ 37. Moffat asked TIAA-CREF about 6 removing Taka as the second annuitant on his annuity contracts, and TIAA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: AMEND. 7 I. BACKGROUND3 8 Moffat's Employment at Stanford University and Issuance of Annuity Contracts 9 Moffat was an employee of Stanford University from approximately 1966 through 1993. 10 See FAC ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan (\"Plan\"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan (\"Plan\"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF. See id. ¶¶ 28-29. In connection with his employment at 15 Stanford and participation in the Plan, Moffat obtained two annuity contracts, one with TIAA and 16 the other with CREF. See id. ¶ 30."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ef5875e-60b7-45fc-8c8d-0322d0dd4d4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11120317-11120317","title":"CourtListener opinion 11120317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 U.S. 662","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ance of Annuity Contracts 9 Moffat was an employee of Stanford University from approximately 1966 through 1993. 10 See FAC ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan (\"Plan\"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF. See id. ¶¶ 28-29. In connection with his employment at 15 Stanford"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11124146 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Johns. Docket: 4-24-1115 This Order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: itioner's 1969 Ford Mustang was marital property but properly found respondent's 1970 Chevrolet Blazer was marital property; (2) abused its discretion with respect to its maintenance decision; (3) properly divided the parties' pensions equally subject to a qualified domestic relations order; (4) did not err when it granted petitioner's motion to reconsider the denial of her request for retroactive maintenance; and (5) properly denied respondent's request for attorney fees associated with his petition for rule to show cause. ¶2 Petitioner, Samantha M. Schonert, n/k/a Samantha Thorne, and respondent, Scott A. Schonert, appeal and cross-ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e. In December 2022, the parties reached an agreement, which allocated certain assets and debts and resolved most financial matters pertaining to the dissolution. As part of this agreement, both Samantha and Scott agreed to keep their respective individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) accounts through Caterpillar. In August 2023, the trial court entered a parenting plan with respect to T.S., which designated Samantha as the majority parent and divided parenting time between the parties. The court also entered an order directing the parties to exchange certain personal property items within seven days of August 23,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ¶8 On November 6, 2023, and November 28, 2023, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the remaining issues in the case, including the allocation of four vehicles (two 1970 Chevrolet Blazers, a 1969 Ford Mustang, and a 1992 Ford Mustang) and the parties' pension plans and whether Samantha was entitled to retroactive child support and maintenance. We note that during trial, the parties agreed to sell one of the Blazers (the \"project\" Blazer) to Samantha's father, Tom Wick. Accordingly, only one of the Blazers is the subject of this appeal. At the outset of the hearing, Scott's counsel expressed the position that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47047143-d269-4c58-b888-6519956c4e6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124146-11124146","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-24-1115 This Order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): es reached an agreement, which allocated certain assets and debts and resolved most financial matters pertaining to the dissolution. As part of this agreement, both Samantha and Scott agreed to keep their respective individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) accounts through Caterpillar. In August 2023, the trial court entered a parenting plan with respect to T.S., which designated Samantha as the majority parent and divided parenting time between the parties. The court also entered an order directing the parties to exchange certain personal property items within seven days of August 23, 2023. Specifically,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11124207 Extracted reporter citation: 624 S.W.3d 199. Docket: 07-25-00006-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124207 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ring. The trial court found, as the arbitrator did, that Dirk violated the PMA thereby triggering the forfeiture provision. Following the final hearing but prior to entry of the final decree, Dirk filed his Objection to Entry of Final Decree of Divorce and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, again asserting the arbitrator's findings and award were incomplete. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW A trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed de novo. Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199, 204, n.19 (Tex. 2021). Whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers under an arbitration agreement is a question of law. Barton v. Fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: etermination of ownership of assets in the event the marriage is dissolved by judicial act or death. As relevant here, the PMA provides as follows: • Dirk will receive all interest in the marital home; • Dirk will receive one hundred percent of his State retirement plan; • JoAl will pay the outstanding mortgage on the marital home and the home equity loan associated with the home; 2 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between precedent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hours after\" signing the PMA. A violation of the non-disclosure provision triggered forfeiture as follows: • his entire interest in the marital home with both parties becoming joint owners of an undivided one-half interest; • his entire interest in any 401k with the funds being awarded to JoAl as liquidated damages; and • his entire interest in his State retirement plan with JoAl receiving fifty percent of those benefits. Any violation by Dirk would also result in certain provisions of the PMA pertaining to JoAl's financial obligations regarding the marital home becoming null and void. The PMA provided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1604a7d-13a5-4650-9eba-0d154cd7512c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124207-11124207","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-25-00006-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"624 S.W.3d 199","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: trial court found, as the arbitrator did, that Dirk violated the PMA thereby triggering the forfeiture provision. Following the final hearing but prior to entry of the final decree, Dirk filed his Objection to Entry of Final Decree of Divorce and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, again asserting the arbitrator's findings and award were incomplete. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW A trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed de novo. Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199, 204, n.19 (Tex. 2021). Whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers under an arbitration agreement is a question of law. Barton v. Fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a04785a7-f0b0-4350-aea2-5db6a3f7f895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124586","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"417 U.S. 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11124586 Extracted case name: E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M. Extracted reporter citation: 417 U.S. 156. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124586 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a04785a7-f0b0-4350-aea2-5db6a3f7f895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124586","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"417 U.S. 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a04785a7-f0b0-4350-aea2-5db6a3f7f895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11124586-11124586","title":"CourtListener opinion 11124586","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"417 U.S. 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 3107.07 that the consent to an adoption of a party described in R.C. 3107.06 is not required is a final appealable order.\"); Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, syllabus (\"A divorce decree that provides for the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (‘QDRO') is a final, appealable order, even before the QDRO is issued.\"); Walburn v. Dunlap, 2009-Ohio-1221, syllabus (\"An order that declares that an insured is entitled to coverage but does not address damages is not a final order as defined in R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), because the order does not affect a substantial right even though made in a special proceeding.\")."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8336a7e5-a863-4b4e-b95d-38102bd7466d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657","title":"CourtListener opinion 11125657","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11125657 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11125657 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8336a7e5-a863-4b4e-b95d-38102bd7466d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657","title":"CourtListener opinion 11125657","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8336a7e5-a863-4b4e-b95d-38102bd7466d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11125657-11125657","title":"CourtListener opinion 11125657","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: plies to federal-question cases in the same manner that it applies to diversity cases, Alexander, 804 F.3d at 1205, it has nonetheless applied the exception in federal- question cases where, as here, a plaintiff \"couch[es]\" claims challenging state-court domestic relations orders as \"constitutional violations.\" Flottman, 2025 WL 609487, at *3 (holding that the domestic relations exception barred federal court review of constitutional claims that sought \"to modify or nullify state-court domestic-relations orders on their merits\"). See also Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 22-5886, 2023 WL 2771640, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023) (holdi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11127632 Extracted reporter citation: 664 N.W.2d 641. Docket: 2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11127632 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: PER CURIAM. Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Salvador and Lorena filed a joint petition for divorce with minor children in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: onsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version. As the parties have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. The Honorable Michael J. Dwyer presided over the Lezamas' divorce. We refer to 2 Judge Dwyer as the trial court. 2 No. 2023AP1967 retirement accounts, a category that had originally been listed as \"none\" in Lorena's financial disclosure. ¶4 In the divorce judgment, findings of fact, and conclusions of law from February 2018, the trial court found Salvador in default for having actual notice of the proceedings, refusing to participate, and failing to appear. Relevant to the issue of retirement accounts"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). No. 2023AP1967 ¶1 PER CURIAM. Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a1ae9f3-61eb-4efe-b982-b540178e3349","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127632-11127632","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN","extracted_reporter_citation":"664 N.W.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Salvador and Lorena filed a joint petition for divorce with minor children in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11127690 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Price. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11127690 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: LEEN'S work-related benefit plans as of the effective date of this Agreement. This division and distribution of the marital portion of the value, rights, benefits and interest in each such plan shall be pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"); and, the entry of this QDRO shall be done in connection with this marital settlement agreement and the entry of a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (divorce decree) which incorporates this written marital settlement agreement.\" As of the time of the execution of the agreement, Kathleen was employed by Elmhurst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: its that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings account. ¶7 On September 21, 2022, Gary filed a petition in which he sought an accounting of \"all monies\" that had accrued in Kathleen's retirement accounts since the dissolution judgment, as well as entry of QDROs (petition). The court scheduled the petition for an evidentiary hearing. ¶8 B. Evidentiary Hearing 2 ¶9 Hearing on the petition occurred on July 1, 2024. Throughout the hearing, the court heard testimony from both parties, as well as from Edward John Graham, a certified public accountant. ¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Marriage (divorce decree) which incorporates this written marital settlement agreement.\" As of the time of the execution of the agreement, Kathleen was employed by Elmhurst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and was enrolled in the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital Pension Plan (Pension Plan). She also had a separate retirement savings account through Elmhurst (savings account). ¶6 On October 14, 2009, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that assigned Gary 50% of the benefits that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de021c3e-b2b7-47c8-b1ff-26bef3bc3b80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11127690-11127690","title":"CourtListener opinion 11127690","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and was enrolled in the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital Pension Plan (Pension Plan). She also had a separate retirement savings account through Elmhurst (savings account). ¶6 On October 14, 2009, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that assigned Gary 50% of the benefits that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings account. ¶7 On September 21, 2022, Gary filed a petition in which he sought an accounting of \"all monies\" that had accrued in Kathleen's retirement accounts since the dissolution judgment, as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11131696 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11131696 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecame a Matheson employee around the time the divorce decree was entered, after Matheson purchased Valley National Gasses. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). The separation and property agreement also called for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\").1 (Doc. No. 1-2 at 29-30). The QDRO required that Ulmes' portion of Toland's 401(k) account be \"segregated and separately maintained\" from Toland's account and for Ulmes' benefit. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). Ulmes alleges this did not occur, \"despite Matheson Tri-Gas receiving notice of the [QDRO].\" (Id.). Ulmes asserts that, in failing to segregate the accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed this litigation against Defendants Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., and Ronald M. Toland, in the Allen County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, asserting tort claims against both Defendants arising out of an alleged failure to provide Ulmes with a portion of Toland's retirement account as required by a divorce decree entered concerning Ulmes and Toland. (Doc. No. 1-2). Matheson timely removed the case to this court. (Doc. No. 1). After some initial motion practice, I granted Ulmes' motion for leave to amend her complaint, (Doc. No. 9), and Ulmes filed her first amended complaint, asserting negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: leges this did not occur, \"despite Matheson Tri-Gas receiving notice of the [QDRO].\" (Id.). Ulmes asserts that, in failing to segregate the account, Matheson was negligent (Count I) or violated its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\") (Count III). (Id. at 2-4). She also asserts Toland was unjustly enriched because he retained the funds Ulmes was entitled to pursuant to the QDRO (Count II). (Id. at 3). III. STANDARD Rule 12 provides for the dismissal of a lawsuit for \"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A court must accept as true"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd357c5-f6c3-418d-843a-f31a69f80e92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11131696-11131696","title":"CourtListener opinion 11131696","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): vorced in 2010. (Id. at 13-14). During the domestic relations proceedings, Ulmes and Toland entered into a separation and property agreement. (Id. at 27-33). In pertinent part, that agreement dictated that Ulmes would receive 33.5% of the value of Toland's 401(k) portfolio with his then-employer, Valley National Gasses WV LLC. (Id. at 29-30). Toland became a Matheson employee around the time the divorce decree was entered, after Matheson purchased Valley National Gasses. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). The separation and property agreement also called for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\").1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11132773 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA BETH MILLER-VERDUYN AND JEREMY MILLER-VERDUYN Upon the Petition of ANGELA. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 24-1256. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11132773 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch he was ordered to do so. Specifically, he argues that the district court should have determined the marital portion of the John Deere Tax-Deferred Savings Plan (TDSP) and deducted it from the lump sum amount and transferred said portion to Angela via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In addition, he contends the amount and manner in which the district court structured the lump sum property settlement did not take into consideration his financial circumstances. Because we believe use of a QDRO in dividing the John Deere TDSP is equitably required, we modify the property equalization provisions of the divorce decree and remand"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Angela used some of the inherited monies to contribute to septic system improvements and made other contributions to the care and maintenance of the Dunkerton property. The parties had no significant marital assets apart from the residence and Jeremy's retirement account. Each retained their personal property following the dissolution. On June 5, 2024, the district court entered its decree, awarding Jeremy full ownership of the marital home and the entirety of his retirement account, with the obligation to repay the outstanding TDSP loan. To achieve an equitable division of property, the court ordered Jeremy to pay Ange"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e of the children. h. The amount and duration of an order granting support payments to either party pursuant to section 598.21A and whether the property division should be in lieu of such payments. i. Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested. Future interests may be considered, but expectancies or interests arising from inherited or gifted property created under a will or other instrument under which the trustee, trustor, trust protector, or owner has the power to remove the party in question as a beneficiary, shall not be considered. j. The tax consequences to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b3975d9-8c0e-4aea-bad2-ba6cb412d70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11132773-11132773","title":"CourtListener opinion 11132773","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24-1256","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ordered to do so. Specifically, he argues that the district court should have determined the marital portion of the John Deere Tax-Deferred Savings Plan (TDSP) and deducted it from the lump sum amount and transferred said portion to Angela via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In addition, he contends the amount and manner in which the district court structured the lump sum property settlement did not take into consideration his financial circumstances. Because we believe use of a QDRO in dividing the John Deere TDSP is equitably required, we modify the property equalization provisions of the divorce decree and remand"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11133981 Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11133981 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not \"a party to the divorce\" between her 13 father and his former wife, \"nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic relations order)],\" she \"ha[d] no beneficial interest in its terms or its administration by 15 the Plan.\" Dkt. No. 20 at 20. Yet Ms. Boyd waited until late June of this year to file suit. Dkt. No. 16 1. Subsequently, she did not respond to a July 1, 2025 order to show cause why her motion to 17 proceed in forma pauperis should n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: that she discovered the 8 defendants' alleged violations in 2024 or earlier. Dkt. No. 19 at 7–8. If that were not enough, in 9 March 2025, counsel for Defendant Locals 302 and 612 International Union of Operating 10 Engineers-Construction Industry Employer Retirement Plan sent Ms. Boyd a letter informing her 11 that she was not designated as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not \"a party to the divorce\" between her 13 father and his former wife, \"nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic rela"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: No. 21. None of the Defendants have yet appeared in this case or responded to the motion. Ms. 19 Boyd, who is proceeding in forma pauperis (\"IFP\"), Dkt. No. 12, requests that this Court 20 \"immediately enjoin Defendants from gagging or withholding\" her \"ERISA plan benefits and 21 Related accounts\" as well as \"compel the release of all withheld accounts and assets,\" Dkt. No. 21 22 at 1–2. 23 24 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a temporary restraining 2 order (\"TRO\"). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is \"an extraordinary 3 remedy never awarded a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77788dd6-70d0-4419-9cb7-b318769fb5e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11133981-11133981","title":"CourtListener opinion 11133981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 7","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: that she was not designated as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not \"a party to the divorce\" between her 13 father and his former wife, \"nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic relations order)],\" she \"ha[d] no beneficial interest in its terms or its administration by 15 the Plan.\" Dkt. No. 20 at 20. Yet Ms. Boyd waited until late June of this year to file suit. Dkt. No. 16 1. Subsequently, she did not respond to a July 1, 2025 order to show cause why her motion to 17 proceed in forma paup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11134084 Extracted reporter citation: 881 S.W.2d 279. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11134084 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ict Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-695469-21 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Renee Yvonne Burgin (now Young) (Wife),1 acting pro se, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)2 that was signed at the request of appellee Jimmy Wayne Burgin, Jr. (Husband) to effectuate the property division set forth in the trial court's Agreed Final Decree of Divorce. Raising a myriad of issues,3 Wife contends that the trial court (1) violated her due process rights; (2) exhibited judicial bias; and (3) abused its discretion by signing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: issues by inadequate briefing). 2 II. BACKGROUND Husband and Wife were divorced in April 2022. Under the terms of the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, which was based on a mediated settlement agreement (MSA), Husband was awarded all but $1,000 of Wife's retirement benefits in the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Savings Plan as of November 18, 2021. The decree contemplated that the trial court would sign a QDRO to effectuate this award. In December 2023, Husband filed a petition for the entry of a QDRO as contemplated by the decree. In August 2024, Wife filed a response in which she asserted that \"[t]he QDRO was r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: roval In her fourth issue, Wife contends that the trial court erred by issuing the QDRO because it had purportedly not been preapproved by the administrator of her retirement plan. Citing Section 1056(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Wife asserts that this preapproval was required and that Husband's failure to obtain it \"render[ed] the QDRO legally defective.\" See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). But the relied-upon statute does not support Wife's assertion. Rather, ERISA Section 1056(d)(3)(G) provides merely that upon receipt of a domestic relations order, \"the plan administrator shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19fdbf1d-3b92-4134-bb8f-5333cbec173b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11134084-11134084","title":"CourtListener opinion 11134084","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"881 S.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: rt Wife's assertion. Rather, ERISA Section 1056(d)(3)(G) provides merely that upon receipt of a domestic relations order, \"the plan administrator shall determine whether such order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the participant and each alternate payee of such determination\" within a reasonable time. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(i)(II). While ERISA Section 1056 contemplates that no amounts will be paid to an alternate payee until the plan administrator (or a court of competent jurisdiction) has determined that a purported QDRO is, in fact, \"qualified,\" the statute does not require the plan 9 administrator t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11137484 Docket: 370181 Ontonagon Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11137484 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t * * * B. It is agreed that Karl Johnson's Ford-UAW Retirement Plan benefits will be divided with 38% ($1051.20) of the monthly benefit awarded to Doris Johnson for the duration of Karl Johnson's lifetime and 62% awarded to Karl Johnson, pursuant to a QDRO. -2- C. Karl Johnson is currently retired and has elected the survivor option under the Ford-UAW Retirement Plan. Doris Johnson is currently and shall remain designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of all of the plan's post-retirement survivor annuity benefit and she shall be entitled to any and all post-retirement surviving spouse benefits u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: said property to Karl Johnson.\" Because the property distribution was inequitable, the consent judgment required Karl to pay Doris an equalization payment of $80,095.69 on or before the date of the closing on the sale of the marital home. Regarding Doris's retirement plan, the consent judgment awarded her 100% of her retirement account from the Ohio education system and 100% of her retirement account from the Michigan education system. The consent judgment required Karl to pay Doris monthly spousal support in the amount of $1,051.20. Regarding Karl's retirement plan, spousal support, and Doris's health insurance, the consent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ts under the Plan. D. Karl Johnson shall provide any and all cooperation and assistance necessary to maintain Doris Johnson's current coverage under the Ford-UAW health insurance plan. * * * 11. Alimony. The parties understand that Karl Johnson's Ford Pension will reduce his monthly benefit payment on or about March 1, 2016. The parties will attempt to have the entirety of Doris Johnson's portion paid to her directly after this date, but if the Plan will not allow this, Karl Johnson will pay to Doris Johnson any portion of her $1,051.20 which she no longer receives directly from the Plan. . . . In the even"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79ba133d-fa91-4b8e-93b5-d4e4c66b3988","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11137484-11137484","title":"CourtListener opinion 11137484","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370181 Ontonagon Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: f Karl Johnson's lifetime and 62% awarded to Karl Johnson, pursuant to a QDRO. -2- C. Karl Johnson is currently retired and has elected the survivor option under the Ford-UAW Retirement Plan. Doris Johnson is currently and shall remain designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of all of the plan's post-retirement survivor annuity benefit and she shall be entitled to any and all post-retirement surviving spouse benefits under the Plan. D. Karl Johnson shall provide any and all cooperation and assistance necessary to maintain Doris Johnson's current coverage under the Ford-UAW health insurance plan. * * * 11."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11138373 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11138373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: education, and increased operational costs.\" S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3205, in 2018 Senate Journal, at 1363. 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, a former spouse may request entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The QDRO, like a HiDRO, \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan\" provided by the participant's private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Interpreting the application of a Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lliam's ERS retirement benefit, with payments to commence at \"the earliest date when [William] shall be qualified to retire.\" William subsequently qualified to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to disclose information regarding the value of his retirement benefits and further failed to make any payments pursuant to the 2012 order. In 2019, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0d40307-ae67-4d1b-a2d4-22652da29723","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138373-11138373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138373","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: a divorce action award and promptly paid.\" S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1058, in 2015 Senate Journal, at 1274. The committee further noted that the new provision would \"help align [HRS] chapter 88 . . . to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act [(ERISA)].\" Id. Under ERISA, by way of amendment through the Retirement Equity 3 William rejects this conclusion. He argues that, because Act 30 amending HRS § 88-93.5 \"specified that the Act would take effect in the future – on July 1, 2020,\" the statute should be read only to apply prospectively. [App. at 7-8, SC Dkt. 1:9-11] This contention is belied by the l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dc80a9d-db11-4f58-adbd-efc3df69cc8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138920","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"295 U.S. 735","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11138920 Extracted case name: LLC v. E. Extracted reporter citation: 295 U.S. 735. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11138920 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dc80a9d-db11-4f58-adbd-efc3df69cc8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138920","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"295 U.S. 735","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dc80a9d-db11-4f58-adbd-efc3df69cc8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138920","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"295 U.S. 735","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance. Husband also continued to work and continued to contribute funds to his retirement plans. -2- counsel had not yet determined who would be responsible for drafting a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") for husband's retirement accounts. On December 9, 2023, before either husband or wife had signed any of the written PSA drafts and before a final decree of divorce had been entered by the circuit court, husband died.2 Two days later, and seemingly unaware of husband's recent death, counsel for husband and counsel for wife discussed logistics for the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dc80a9d-db11-4f58-adbd-efc3df69cc8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138920","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"295 U.S. 735","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , Judge Jack R. Corkery (John H. Taylor; FloranceGordonBrown, P.C., on brief), for appellants. Benjamin P. Kyber (Kevin W. Mottley; The Mottley Law Firm PLC, on brief), for appellee. This case concerns a dispute over title to real property and certain retirement accounts. William Fisher and Daniel Fisher (collectively the \"Fishers\")—both of whom are the sons of the late Daniel E. Fisher (\"husband\") from a previous marriage—appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond dismissing their counterclaim and granting summary judgment for Elizabeth J. Smith (\"wife\"). The Fishers argue that equitable es"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dc80a9d-db11-4f58-adbd-efc3df69cc8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11138920-11138920","title":"CourtListener opinion 11138920","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"295 U.S. 735","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: agreement. Evidence of wife's purported delay in executing the PSA is not a material fact precluding summary judgment because it did not \"affect the outcome of the case\" as the way that the marital residence was titled would cause it to pass directly to the surviving spouse as long as they were still married at the time of husband's death—and they had not signed a property settlement agreement stating that they had agreed to otherwise handle the ownership of the marital residence. Brizzolara, 274 Va. at 188. Thus, for all of these reasons and given that there were no material facts genuinely in dispute, the circuit court d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11139198 Docket: 370312 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139198 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or until the Plaintiff retired from his current employment, at which time, spousal support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: bility and was placed on a no work medical leave. Since that time, plaintiff states he has not returned to work in any capacity and his only income consists of Social Security Disability benefits, while defendant has already begun receiving her portion of his pension under the consent judgment. In June of 2023, defendant moved to enforce the spousal support provision and collect arrearages. Plaintiff responded in a countermotion asserting that his obligation should have terminated upon his permanent withdrawal from the workforce in 2020, which he contended satisfied the retirement condition set forth in the consent ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: l support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the Defendant only (and none other) as his pre-retirement surviving"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3fab8cc-c594-4bd8-9d74-98534f1d6232","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139198-11139198","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"370312 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the Plaintiff retired from his current employment, at which time, spousal support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c19c534b-2299-4192-aa36-641333e5f143","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139362","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11139362 Extracted case name: M.J. v. HIGHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139362 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c19c534b-2299-4192-aa36-641333e5f143","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139362","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c19c534b-2299-4192-aa36-641333e5f143","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139362-11139362","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139362","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: bstention under Burrus and its progeny appropriate,\" because the substance of the claims revolved around the state courts' underlying domestic-relations decisions, and the relief requested would require the district court \"to modify or nullify state-court domestic relations orders on their merits.\" Id. at *3 (citing Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 22- 5886, 2023 WL 2771640, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023)). Consistent with Edelstein and Danforth, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the Burrus abstention doctrine and its progeny. Plaintiff freely admits that the \"relief sought would necessarily require the Court to revie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a76df4dd-f0fd-44ef-94e4-45aad3574e00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139373","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11139373 Extracted case name: M.J. v. CLINTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a76df4dd-f0fd-44ef-94e4-45aad3574e00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139373","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a76df4dd-f0fd-44ef-94e4-45aad3574e00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139373-11139373","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139373","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: bstention under Burrus and its progeny appropriate,\" because the substance of the claims revolved around the state courts' underlying domestic-relations decisions, and the relief requested would require the district court \"to modify or nullify state-court domestic relations orders on their merits.\" Id. at *3 (citing Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 22- 5886, 2023 WL 2771640, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023)). Consistent with Edelstein and Danforth, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the Burrus abstention doctrine and its progeny. Plaintiff freely admits that the \"relief sought would necessarily require the Court to revie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11139639 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROZANNE MARIE BIRD AND JAMES ROY BIRD Upon the Petition of ROZANNE MARIE BIRD. Extracted reporter citation: 733 N.W.2d 683. Docket: 25-0324. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139639 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: unt using the percentage method normally applicable to cases involving IPERS. See In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d 678, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (modifying decree, where present value of IPERS account was not ascertainable on the record, to order a QDRO using the percentage method to divide the future benefits when received). Given that neither party provided the district court with a valuation for this account, that the only number ascertainable for the IPERS was Rozanne's modest monthly payment, and the division of the other assets and respective incomes of the parties, we conclude the district cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 341995, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 29, 2014) (coming to a similar conclusion). And we affirm the division of the two funds given the length of the marriage and totality of property division. Lastly, James argues that the court erred by excluding Rozanne's retirement account from the marital estate. But we are unable to find such exclusion in the record, and James does not point to any provision in the decree to demonstrate that the district court exempted Rozanne's IPERS from the marital estate. Rather, the district court awarded Rozanne her IPERS account as part of the divisible marital estate, citing to the party's respe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ames challenges only the division of three accounts, specifically the Eaton Fund, which is a 401(k) from James's previous employer, the Thrivent Mutual Fund IRA (Thrivent Fund), which is a traditional IRA account funded with a lump sum payment from James's pension, and Rozanne's IPERS.1 1There is limited information about Rozanne's IPERS account in the record. Rozanne testified that rather than a lump sum, she elected a monthly payment, wherein she receives $230.03 per month. 3 At the time of trial, the value of the Eaton Fund was $137,061.28, and the value of the Thrivent Pension Fund was $377,290.76.2 Neither"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16e5d9ee-1cec-4e3f-8704-211c213d8ab1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11139639-11139639","title":"CourtListener opinion 11139639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-0324","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 N.W.2d 683","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): , the value and award of appliances removed from a piece of property, financial accounts and investments, unsecured debts, and trial attorney fees. But on appeal, James challenges only the division of three accounts, specifically the Eaton Fund, which is a 401(k) from James's previous employer, the Thrivent Mutual Fund IRA (Thrivent Fund), which is a traditional IRA account funded with a lump sum payment from James's pension, and Rozanne's IPERS.1 1There is limited information about Rozanne's IPERS account in the record. Rozanne testified that rather than a lump sum, she elected a monthly payment, wherein she re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1a26961-efa6-454c-be06-73002870f1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323","title":"CourtListener opinion 11140323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"208 Cal.App.4th 1074","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11140323 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DENNIS STACEY and MARSHA STACEY. DENNIS STACEY. Extracted reporter citation: 208 Cal.App.4th 1074. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11140323 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1a26961-efa6-454c-be06-73002870f1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323","title":"CourtListener opinion 11140323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"208 Cal.App.4th 1074","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1a26961-efa6-454c-be06-73002870f1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323","title":"CourtListener opinion 11140323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"208 Cal.App.4th 1074","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o issued an $1,039 per month earnings assignment order on Dennis's earnings for spousal support. Marsha's July 2018 Request for Order On July 2, 2018, Marsha filed a request for order to modify spousal support, set arrears, and for the court to either sign a qualified domestic relations order or designate her share of Dennis's retirement as spousal support. Marsha asked the court to either sign the prepared orders, which were attached to the request for order,7 or add her military retirement share to the spousal support until the appeal ended so she could garnish Dennis's wages for the entire amount. 7 The following proposed retirement orders w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1a26961-efa6-454c-be06-73002870f1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11140323-11140323","title":"CourtListener opinion 11140323","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"208 Cal.App.4th 1074","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n $1,039 per month earnings assignment order on Dennis's earnings for spousal support. Marsha's July 2018 Request for Order On July 2, 2018, Marsha filed a request for order to modify spousal support, set arrears, and for the court to either sign a qualified domestic relations order or designate her share of Dennis's retirement as spousal support. Marsha asked the court to either sign the prepared orders, which were attached to the request for order,7 or add her military retirement share to the spousal support until the appeal ended so she could garnish Dennis's wages for the entire amount. 7 The following proposed retirement orders w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11141202 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11141202 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ary award is a one-time, non-modifiable monetary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c11378c7-cd78-4ff1-8acc-616757714a1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141202-11141202","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s a priority unsecured claim in the amount of $76,872.11 pursuant to § 507(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, based upon her belief that the claim constituted a domestic support obligation, and countered that Ms. Kirklin's claim only qualifies as a non-priority equitable distribution claim. Simultaneously, the Debtor moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (\"Rule 12(b)(6)\") to dismiss the adversary proceeding commenced by Ms. Kirklin seeking a declaration of nondischargeability for her claim pursuant to § 523(a)(5) as a domestic support obligation and/or § 523(a)(3) as a claim which Debtor did not schedule in tim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11141213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11141213 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ary award is a one-time, non-modifiable monetary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would \"[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')\" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd726129-7380-4e31-a12a-e2b2440c1071","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11141213-11141213","title":"CourtListener opinion 11141213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s a priority unsecured claim in the amount of $76,872.11 pursuant to § 507(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, based upon her belief that the claim constituted a domestic support obligation, and countered that Ms. Kirklin's claim only qualifies as a non-priority equitable distribution claim. Simultaneously, the Debtor moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (\"Rule 12(b)(6)\") to dismiss the adversary proceeding commenced by Ms. Kirklin seeking a declaration of nondischargeability for her claim pursuant to § 523(a)(5) as a domestic support obligation and/or § 523(a)(3) as a claim which Debtor did not schedule in tim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11145116 Extracted reporter citation: 276 A.3d 221. Docket: 1694 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11145116 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 12 20957 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 Appellant, Shan Ling, appeals from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. We affirm. This Court previously provided the relevant background of the parties, as follows: Husband [Michael Lausch] and Wife [Shan Ling] met in Shanghai and were married there in 2000. . . . Husband and Wife subsequently moved to the United States, where their daughter was born in 2003. In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on for Enforcement of the Marital Transfer Order,\" in which she alleged Mr. Lausch had not complied with the order's requirement that he transfer $465,164.57 from his Campbell Soup Company-sponsored 401(k) retirement savings plan account to her Individual Retirement Account. The lower court issued upon Mr. Lausch a rule to show cause why it should not grant relief to Ms. Ling. Through counsel, Mr. Lausch filed an answer explaining that, in 2021, he was prepared to transfer the 401(k) funds pursuant to the court's marital transfer order, but, before he could do so, Ms. Ling filed an appeal to this Court challenging the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r into my Roth IRA. Additionally, I submitted court evidence [] and an index table [] regarding the $600,000+ in fraudulent misappropriation and judicial errors from the 2017 hearing, seeking a freeze on the plaintiff's retirement funds— including 401(k), pension, and Roth IRA accounts—totaling $1.5 million, until these judgments are rectified. ... The May 2021 divorce judgment was based on the marital assets assessed during the 2017 hearing. Apart from the $600,000+ in misappropriated marital assets due to fraudulent judgment errors, [Mr. Lausch's counsel's] proposal in 2023 to transfer marital assets came"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3465f344-02f0-4302-8d0d-e7751370da54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11145116-11145116","title":"CourtListener opinion 11145116","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1694 MDA 2024","extracted_reporter_citation":"276 A.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ssue before the trial court in her June 26, 2024, \"Petition for Enforcement of the Marital Transfer Order,\" in which she alleged Mr. Lausch had not complied with the order's requirement that he transfer $465,164.57 from his Campbell Soup Company-sponsored 401(k) retirement savings plan account to her Individual Retirement Account. The lower court issued upon Mr. Lausch a rule to show cause why it should not grant relief to Ms. Ling. Through counsel, Mr. Lausch filed an answer explaining that, in 2021, he was prepared to transfer the 401(k) funds pursuant to the court's marital transfer order, but, before he c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11146319 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey. Docket: 5-24-1179 Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11146319 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion, and the personal property presently in her possession.\" ¶6 Amy's petition alleged that William was now retired and drawing his pension but was willfully and contemptuously refusing to abide by the terms of the MSA \"by refusing to sign the requisite [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] required for [Amy] to begin receiving her share of [William's] pension.\" On May 8, 2024, the court entered a rule to show cause order. On June 18, 2024, William filed an answer denying the majority of Amy's allegations. On June 25, 2 2024, the trial court granted the parties leave to file a memorandum of law \"as to the issue of the time period"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sary, stating, \"now, and at the time of its original ruling\" it \"thoroughly examined the case law\" proffered by the parties and was \"not persuaded by the well-argued position set forth by the movant.\" On October 25, 2024, the circuit court issued a federal retirement benefits order that provided Amy with \"fifty percent (50%) of [William's] gross monthly annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System from the date of marriage, May 10, 1997, through the date on which the Judgment for Dissolution was entered, July 6, 2011.\" The order directed the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue Amy's portion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: for rule to show cause prior to the appeal. ¶2 Respondent, Amy May, appeals the circuit court's post-dissolution order. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court's post-dissolution order failed to allocate her portion of petitioner William D. May Jr.'s pension and further argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence related to the pension apportionment. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal. 1 ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 In 2011, William filed for divorce from Amy, after 14 years of marriage. A judgment of dissolution that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and a joint p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"952952e3-b067-45cf-890a-790a2249162b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11146319-11146319","title":"CourtListener opinion 11146319","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-24-1179 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): eal estate located at 601 North 35th Street, Herrin, Illinois, the 1995 Ford F-150 truck, the 1998 Dodge Dakota truck, the sixteen foot john boat, the twenty-one food Stratford boa[t], the Kodiak four-wheeler, one-half (1/2) of his pension, all of his 401(K) plan, and the personal property presently in his possession. 8. That Respondent, AMY MAY, shall be the sole owner, exclusive of any claim, right or interest of the Petitioner, WILLIAM D. MAY Jr., of the 2006 Chrysler Town and Country van, one-half (1/2) of the Petitioner's pension, and the personal property presently in her possession.\" ¶6 Amy's pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11149247 Extracted reporter citation: 305 F.3d 439. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11149247 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion and Northern Trust, Inc. as Defendants, but those Defendants did not proceed to trial and are thus not included in this Order. receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future. Excluded from the Class are (a) any person who was or is an officer, director, employee, or a shareholder of 5% or more of the equity of any AutoZone or is or was a partner, officer, director, or controlling person of AutoZo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: No. 338 at PageID 22546–48 & 22555.) 3 Mr. Tobe was admitted as an expert in the stable value field without objection. (ECF No. 410 at PageID 23952.) Prior to trial, his opinions concerning the \"spread\" Prudential earned on the GIF, comparisons of other retirement plan's crediting rates to the crediting rate of the GIF, and proper benchmarking to measure the crediting rate of the GIF were excluded. (ECF No. 338 at PageID 22566–74.) The final witness was Defendants' damages expert Dr. Russell R. Wermers, Director of the Center for Financial Policy at the University of Maryland. (ECF No. 414 at PageID 24461.) He testi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: LLIAMS; and RICK SMITH, individually and as members of the AUTOZONE, Inc. Investment Committee, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants1 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended Class Action Complaint on September 22, 2021, bringing one count against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to the AutoZone, Inc. 401(k) Plan (\"Plan\"). (ECF No. 85.) On December 7, 2022, this Court certified the following class: All persons, other than Defendants, who are or were participant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"933789c8-1221-48d9-a5e9-b8dae269b467","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149247-11149247","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"305 F.3d 439","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR., and NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp AUTOZONE, INC., as plan sponsor; BILL GILES, BRIAN CAMPBELL, STEVE BEUSSINK; KRISTIN WRIGHT; MICHAEL WOMACK; KEVIN WILLIAMS; and RICK SMITH, individually and as members of the AUTOZONE, Inc. Investment Committee, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1287d4d0-684c-4af2-8241-dcb9973265ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11149784 Extracted case name: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMSON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11149784 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1287d4d0-684c-4af2-8241-dcb9973265ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1287d4d0-684c-4af2-8241-dcb9973265ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: submitted to support the motion for default established that Steven and Annie Stone retained respondent in September 1991 to file for a dissolution. Pursuant to the couple's separation agreement, respondent attempted to provide Steven Stone's employer with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\") to obtain certain employee benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1287d4d0-684c-4af2-8241-dcb9973265ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11149784-11149784","title":"CourtListener opinion 11149784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to support the motion for default established that Steven and Annie Stone retained respondent in September 1991 to file for a dissolution. Pursuant to the couple's separation agreement, respondent attempted to provide Steven Stone's employer with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\") to obtain certain employee benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"999435ea-a835-40ca-974d-fa4b75d3ecfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481","title":"CourtListener opinion 11151481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11151481 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11151481 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"999435ea-a835-40ca-974d-fa4b75d3ecfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481","title":"CourtListener opinion 11151481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"999435ea-a835-40ca-974d-fa4b75d3ecfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11151481-11151481","title":"CourtListener opinion 11151481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in discovery matters and in determining the appropriate spousal support award, see State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469, 692 N.E.2d 198, 201 (discovery), and Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028, 1030 (domestic relations orders), an extraordinary writ will not issue to control her judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused. See State ex rel. Thomson v. Court of Claims (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 495, 497, 687 N.E.2d 456, 458. {¶ 9} Further, any errors committed by Judge Dezso will be remediable on appeal. Neither prohibition nor mandamus will issue as a substitute to revie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11152463 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152463 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: yments directly to a former spouse with a property interest in the fund. Thus, H.B. 535 reflects the General Assembly's dissatisfaction with the courts' incorrect interpretation of R.C. Chapter 742 and is simply a clarification of the law as it exists today. Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") {¶ 27} The trial court's July 20, 1998 entry included the following language: \"The [domestic relations order] attached to this judgment entry is, and shall be treated by the parties as, a ‘qualified' domestic relations order for purposes of Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code, thereby causing [Donna] to be considered the recipient and dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sets. We answer this question in the 1. R.C. 3105.171(A) provides: \"(3)(a) ‘Marital property' means * * * all of the following: \"(i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; \"(ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; \"* * * \"(B) In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: [This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 503.] ERB, APPELLANT, v. ERB; OHIO POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, APPELLEE. [Cite as Erb v. Erb, 2001-Ohio-104.] Domestic relations—Divorce and alimony—Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund ordered by court to pay directly to member's former spouse that portion of member's monthly benefit that represents former spouse's property pursuant to division of marital assets—Order does not violate terms of the administrati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbce142-f108-421e-be90-00b380a9141a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152463-11152463","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152463","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ts she receives directly [from] the Fund.\" {¶ 28} The fund contends that the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") Donna seeks to have enforced against the fund is based on a mechanism created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), Section 1001 et seq., Title 29, U.S.Code. Because an ERISA QDRO may be used only in relation to private pensions, the fund argues that the QDRO may not be enforced against the fund, a government pension. See Sections 1003(b)(1) and 1002(32), Title 29, U.S.Code. 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 29} There is no support for the fund's contention that the QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b91c616a-fcb1-4b60-b72e-42433f8c00f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152716","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11152716 Extracted case name: RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BRICKLEY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152716 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b91c616a-fcb1-4b60-b72e-42433f8c00f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152716","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b91c616a-fcb1-4b60-b72e-42433f8c00f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152716","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): spondent never filed them. B {¶4} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a client after her divorce was finalized in December 1999. The client stood to receive one-half of the value of her ex-husband's 401(k) fund from the divorce decree. The client repeatedly asked respondent to complete the work and he promised that he would, but he never did. C {¶5} In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client's lawful objectives), and 7-101(A)(2). He failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment while defending a client in a civil s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b91c616a-fcb1-4b60-b72e-42433f8c00f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152716-11152716","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152716","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to prepare and file documents for the appointment of a guardian for the client's sister. Respondent prepared the documents and his client signed them, but respondent never filed them. B {¶4} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a client after her divorce was finalized in December 1999. The client stood to receive one-half of the value of her ex-husband's 401(k) fund from the divorce decree. The client repeatedly asked respondent to complete the work and he promised that he would, but he never did. C {¶5} In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11152728 Extracted case name: OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOLDEN. Extracted reporter citation: 769 N.E.2d 816. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152728 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Count III, the evidence showed that respondent represented a client during her 1997 divorce and that those proceedings required respondent to 1. A tenth count of misconduct found by the panel was later discounted by the board. 2 January Term, 2002 file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer funds from an IRA to the client. Respondent never filed the QDRO but misled the client into believing that she had. The panel found this conduct to violate DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law); 6-107(A)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rs and other property), and 6-101(A)(3). {¶15} As to Count IX, the evidence showed that in representing another client in her 1996 divorce, respondent again was required to file a QDRO so that the client could receive a portion of her former husband's 401(k) pension. Respondent did not file the QDRO during 1996, 1997, or 1998. {¶16} When her client was finally able to reach respondent and complain that she was not receiving any money from the QDRO, respondent falsely told the client that the QDRO had been filed. Respondent also told the client that she had had to sue the administrator of the 401(k) plan and that vario"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 's papers and other property), and 6-101(A)(3). {¶15} As to Count IX, the evidence showed that in representing another client in her 1996 divorce, respondent again was required to file a QDRO so that the client could receive a portion of her former husband's 401(k) pension. Respondent did not file the QDRO during 1996, 1997, or 1998. {¶16} When her client was finally able to reach respondent and complain that she was not receiving any money from the QDRO, respondent falsely told the client that the QDRO had been filed. Respondent also told the client that she had had to sue the administrator of the 401(k) plan and th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f09b257a-7b4a-4ac6-ad02-c298f9a83d5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152728-11152728","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152728","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"769 N.E.2d 816","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the evidence showed that respondent represented a client during her 1997 divorce and that those proceedings required respondent to 1. A tenth count of misconduct found by the panel was later discounted by the board. 2 January Term, 2002 file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer funds from an IRA to the client. Respondent never filed the QDRO but misled the client into believing that she had. The panel found this conduct to violate DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law); 6-107(A)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f52e79-cf54-4cd7-a288-9ed17819e6ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11152995 Extracted case name: OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EASTERWOOD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152995 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f52e79-cf54-4cd7-a288-9ed17819e6ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f52e79-cf54-4cd7-a288-9ed17819e6ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s fitness to practice law). {¶ 3} Again, based on stipulations, the panel found that in 1997, Martha V. McConnaughy agreed to pay respondent $1,500 if he would represent her in a divorce case. After the divorce was granted, respondent did not draft or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as ordered by the court because McConnaughy had paid only $300 of the agreed fee. Respondent, however, did not notify McConnaughy or the court that he was not proceeding further in the case. The panel concluded that this inaction by respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). {¶ 4}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07f52e79-cf54-4cd7-a288-9ed17819e6ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11152995-11152995","title":"CourtListener opinion 11152995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to practice law). {¶ 3} Again, based on stipulations, the panel found that in 1997, Martha V. McConnaughy agreed to pay respondent $1,500 if he would represent her in a divorce case. After the divorce was granted, respondent did not draft or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as ordered by the court because McConnaughy had paid only $300 of the agreed fee. Respondent, however, did not notify McConnaughy or the court that he was not proceeding further in the case. The panel concluded that this inaction by respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). {¶ 4}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11162425 Extracted reporter citation: 575 F.3d 24. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11162425 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ERISA's anti-alienation policy, 29 U.S.C. § 1056, controlled such that decedent's first divorce decree could not re-direct the policy proceeds to his children. The court, however, found that the anti-alienation provision (and preemption) did not apply to the qualified domestic relations order (QDROs) specifically naming decedent's first wife and children as beneficiaries. Id. at 6-8. 11 2. Constructive trust Sullivan's state-law constructive trust claim warrants little discussion. Here, Sullivan asks that the court impose a trust on the life insurance proceeds and that the trust then designate the three Dobens children as beneficiaries."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t sued their father's second wife, whose marriage to the decedent ended in a divorce shortly before his intestate death. Id. at 144. At the time of death, the wife was the named beneficiary under the decedent's employer-sponsored life insurance policy and pension. Id. The children argued that they were entitled to the life insurance proceeds because a Washington state statute disqualified the wife as a beneficiary of a non-probate asset as a result of the divorce. Id. at 145. Although the state trial court found in the wife's favor, both the intermediate appellate court and Washington Supreme Court found, inte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: associated with defending this lawsuit. There are two motions pending before the court. First, O'Connor moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Sullivan's claims are pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and that Securian's interpleader action is thereby mooted. Both Sullivan and Securian timely objected. Shortly thereafter, Securian moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its interpleader claim, to which only O'Connor objected. See Fed R. Civ. P. 12(c). 2 After review of the pleadings, motions, objections, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9291796d-3135-4d5a-970a-a167d2c5db7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11162425-11162425","title":"CourtListener opinion 11162425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"575 F.3d 24","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nti-alienation policy, 29 U.S.C. § 1056, controlled such that decedent's first divorce decree could not re-direct the policy proceeds to his children. The court, however, found that the anti-alienation provision (and preemption) did not apply to the qualified domestic relations order (QDROs) specifically naming decedent's first wife and children as beneficiaries. Id. at 6-8. 11 2. Constructive trust Sullivan's state-law constructive trust claim warrants little discussion. Here, Sullivan asks that the court impose a trust on the life insurance proceeds and that the trust then designate the three Dobens children as beneficiaries."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11164171 Extracted reporter citation: 392 F.3d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11164171 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nsurance C o . v. Civil N o . 08-cv-248-JL Opinion N o . 2009 DNH 146 Judith A . Hanson, et a l . MEMORANDUM ORDER This interpleader action involving the proceeds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by General Electric Company for its employee, decedent William J. Hanson. Two of the three interpleader defendants have cross-moved for sum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: . 2009 DNH 146 Judith A . Hanson, et a l . MEMORANDUM ORDER This interpleader action involving the proceeds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by General Electric Company for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1762136c-46f2-4dd7-ac43-94fc92e7b888","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164171-11164171","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: riage is a qualified domestic relations order. Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i).3 What the parties dispute is whether the QDRO 3 ERISA defines \"qualified domestic relations order\" as \"a domestic relations order ... which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right t o , or assigns to an alternate payee the right t o , receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan,\" and which also meets certain other requirements -- not disputed here -- set forth at 29 U.S.C. § 1056(3)(C) and ( D ) . Id.; see also id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii) (defining \"domestic relations order\"). On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9ca7ae9-2058-49b0-a584-c009e7ddff0e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 653","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11164834 Extracted case name: J.A.D. v. F.J.D. Extracted reporter citation: 634 S.W.3d 653. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11164834 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9ca7ae9-2058-49b0-a584-c009e7ddff0e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 653","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9ca7ae9-2058-49b0-a584-c009e7ddff0e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 653","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt denied Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order to both parties equally. Wife then filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the amended judgment, asserting the same grounds as her first motion, which was again denied by the circuit court. Wife then appealed. Wife filed her initial appellate brief on January 13, 2025, and this Court issued its Order the following day, notifying Wife that her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9ca7ae9-2058-49b0-a584-c009e7ddff0e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 653","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order to both parties equally. Wife then filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the amended judgment, asserting the same grounds as her first motion, which was again denied by the circuit court. Wife then appealed. Wife filed her initial appellate brief on January 13, 2025, and this Court issued its Order the following day, notifying Wife that her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9ca7ae9-2058-49b0-a584-c009e7ddff0e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11164834-11164834","title":"CourtListener opinion 11164834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 653","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: il 2024, the circuit court entered judgment dissolving the marriage of Wife and Mr. Anthony Jay Shelton (\"Husband\") and addressing custody and child support. Wife filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the judgment, primarily lodging complaints about property division and other monetary considerations addressed by the dissolution judgment. The circuit court denied Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83b1d30e-b824-4d9c-a5f7-58ee54c386ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646","title":"CourtListener opinion 11166646","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11166646 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11166646 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83b1d30e-b824-4d9c-a5f7-58ee54c386ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646","title":"CourtListener opinion 11166646","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83b1d30e-b824-4d9c-a5f7-58ee54c386ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11166646-11166646","title":"CourtListener opinion 11166646","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ts under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments as well as under several state laws and rules. [Id. at p. 3]. Ultimately, Plaintiff seems to assert that this lawsuit arises from several occasions of insufficiency of process in what appears to be related to a domestic relations order. [Id. at pp. 4–5]. Plaintiff lists the \"Department of Human Resources\" as a defendant in this action. The Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to what used to be known as the Georgia Department of Human Resources. However, the Georgia Department of Human Resources has not existed by that name since 2009. As such, Plaintiff seemingly seeks relief"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11176396 Docket: 25AP-179 5 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11176396 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ight, title, and interest in her State Teachers Retirement System account, and Jerry waived all interest in that account. The agreed divorce decree further provided that Valentina would receive one-half of the marital portion of Jerry's ODC account and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QRDO\") would be entered to effectuate the division. The court entered the QRDO on May 5, 2016. {¶ 4} On November 15, 2024, Valentina filed a pro se motion to modify the agreed divorce decree. Valentina asserted that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Jerry had selected a single life annuity plan upon his retirement from state employment.1 Selection of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: counterclaim for divorce on October 8, 2015. Jerry had retired from employment with the State of Ohio in 2014. As part of the divorce proceedings, Jerry filed an affidavit of property attesting that he had an Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\"OPERS\") retirement account with a value of $4,000 per month, and an Ohio Deferred No. 25AP-179 2 Compensation (\"ODC\") plan with a value of $213,361.25 as of June 2015. Both Valentina and Jerry were represented by counsel during the divorce proceedings. {¶ 3} On August 28, 2016, the trial court entered an agreed divorce decree awarding the parties a divorce and dividing their marit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: er, and issue a Ruling to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System her Spousal Consent Form was Forged. II. The Trial Court erred in not acknowledging the distinction between Retirement Benefits, and a Matured Survivor Annuity, when dividing a Public Pension in Valentina Reed's divorce, and not issuing a Ruling her OPERS Spousal Consent Form was forged. (Emphasis in original.) (Sic passim.) No. 25AP-179 4 III. Discussion {¶ 8} Valentina's two assignments of error are related, and we will address them together. {¶ 9} As explained above, the trial court construed Valentina's motion to modify as a motion fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a31c8424-b260-49d9-9833-d0dd86d31fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11176396-11176396","title":"CourtListener opinion 11176396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25AP-179 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e, and interest in her State Teachers Retirement System account, and Jerry waived all interest in that account. The agreed divorce decree further provided that Valentina would receive one-half of the marital portion of Jerry's ODC account and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QRDO\") would be entered to effectuate the division. The court entered the QRDO on May 5, 2016. {¶ 4} On November 15, 2024, Valentina filed a pro se motion to modify the agreed divorce decree. Valentina asserted that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Jerry had selected a single life annuity plan upon his retirement from state employment.1 Selection of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11177374 Extracted reporter citation: 987 F.3d 616. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11177374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ent consulting and management, and trustee/custodian services; (2) \"A La Carte\" services with separate additional fees which typically include loan processing and maintenance, brokerage services/account maintenance, distribution services, and processing of qualified domestic relations orders; and (3) Ad Hoc fees such as transaction fees and other administrative fees for various services. (Id. ¶¶ 53-56). The sum of fees for Bundled RKA, A La Carte, and Ad Hoc services equals the Total RKA fees. (Id. ¶ 57). Plaintiffs maintain, however, that Bundled RKA fees make up most of the Plan fee charges. (Id. ¶ 58). In the retirement plan services in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ct the investment of their contributions, but the Plan selects the recordkeeper and investments. (Id. ¶ 4). In 2022, the Plan had approximately $1,468,437,574 in assets with 18,965 participants. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46). Mega 401(k) plans like Dover's hire national retirement plan service providers—referred to as recordkeepers—with bundled service offerings that can meet all the needs of very large retirement plans with the same level and caliber of services for recordkeeping and administration (\"RKA\") services and fees. (Id. ¶ 48). There are three general types of RKA services provided by all plan recordkeepers: (1) Bundled RKA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: stee 37 Participant loan processing 49 Other services 50 Direct payment from the plan 60 Sub-transfer agency fees 62 Float revenue 64 Recordkeeping fees Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes TOWERS WATSON NONE $328,584 17 Consulting (pension) 50 Direct payment from the plan 70 Consulting fees Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes FINANCIAL ENGINES INC NONE $263,242 27 Investment advisory (plan) 51 investment management fees paid directly by plan Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes CROWE HORWATH LLP NONE $59,000 29 Legal 50 Direct payment from the plan Pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0551d02f-1fae-4236-977d-ca7f921f15cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11177374-11177374","title":"CourtListener opinion 11177374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"987 F.3d 616","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ectively, \"Defendants\"). Plaintiffs assert allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by paying excessive recordkeeping fees (Count I) and failing to monitor (Count II), both in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1104. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 79). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted. BACKGROUND According to the operative complaint, Dover is a global manufacturer headquartered in Illinois that sponsors a 401(k) defined contribution plan for participants like Plaintif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11178295 Extracted case name: RONALD L. SHOEMAKE v. ANN L. SHOEMAKE. Extracted reporter citation: 401 S.W.3d 595. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11178295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t ordered Husband to pay the TCRS shortage and ruled that Husband should continue to pay the $600.00 monthly alimony but declined to rule on the motion for contempt, stating that the court \"reserves the issue of granting a judgment pending the approval of the QDRO to be submitted.\" Despite the trial court's ruling, Husband did not resume his alimony payments and did not comply fully with the order concerning his TCRS obligation, and Wife accordingly filed a second motion for contempt in August 2024. In that motion, Wife requested that the trial court find Husband \"in civil contempt for his failure to make payments fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and and Wife had both been employed by the State of Tennessee during their marriage, the Final Decree provided for an equitable division of the parties' respective TCRS pension payments using the deferred distribution method for calculating division of future retirement benefits. The Final Decree additionally awarded alimony in futuro to Wife in the amount of $1,200.00, to be paid by Husband monthly until his retirement, at which point the monthly payment would be reduced to $600.00. For several years following their divorce, the parties proceeded without court intervention. On April 3, 2018, Husband retired at the age of sixty-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: _____________________________ In this post-divorce action, the wife, Ann L. Shoemake (\"Wife\"), filed a petition against the husband, Ronald L. Shoemake (\"Husband\"), in the Sumner County Chancery Court (\"trial court\") to receive her marital share of Husband's pension payments through the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (\"TCRS\"). Wife had been awarded a portion of Husband's TCRS payments in the final decree of divorce (\"Final Decree\"). Husband filed a counter-petition seeking, inter alia, a reduction of his alimony in futuro obligation. After the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Wife for her portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a98d9d-a4cf-4dee-8bcf-5b458ae24dee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178295-11178295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"401 S.W.3d 595","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: retirement [$]839.00 to be sent to me by TCRS to my account the way it was suppose[d] to be done when you retired.\" Wife also gave Husband an ultimatum to comply within two weeks. In response to the letter, Husband sent to Wife a partially completed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Husband had filled in a portion of the QDRO to reflect the parties' marriage and divorce dates and the monthly retirement from TCRS that Husband had determined he owed to Wife in the amount of $840.00. Wife did not sign the QDRO. On January 4, 2023, Wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking (1) a determination of \"what share and interest"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9bd1b08b-fdc6-44c6-a5d0-c0fe63050b82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178597","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18 at 2–3. Because the","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11178597 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 18 at 2–3. Because the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11178597 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9bd1b08b-fdc6-44c6-a5d0-c0fe63050b82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178597","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18 at 2–3. Because the","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9bd1b08b-fdc6-44c6-a5d0-c0fe63050b82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11178597-11178597","title":"CourtListener opinion 11178597","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18 at 2–3. Because the","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: port hearing in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 1; see also Taylor v. Lawrence Cnty. Domestic Rel. Section, No. 2:23-cv-01321-CCW, (W.D. Pa.) (\"Taylor I\"), ECF Nos. 3, 4. During that hearing, Ms. Taylor was found to be in contempt of her domestic relations order and was taken into custody by officers of the Lawrence County Domestic Relations Section, including Detective Cory Smith, the Defendant in this case. ECF No. 5 at 3–4. Ms. Taylor alleges that she informed the arresting officers that, due to an existing shoulder injury, she was unable to place her hands behind her back to be handcuffed. Id. at 4. Ms. Tayl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fbd90f-6026-4c4c-9084-1f51761b5f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11181649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11181649 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11181649 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fbd90f-6026-4c4c-9084-1f51761b5f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11181649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fbd90f-6026-4c4c-9084-1f51761b5f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11181649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 401(k) funds that had not been comingled with non- exempt funds. See 131 S.W.3d 261, 270 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). In Jones, the administrator for the employer of Jones's ex-husband mistakenly paid Jones funds she was not entitled to under the QDRO. Id. at 268. After obtaining a judgment against Jones in federal court, the employer applied for a turnover order in state court. Id. at 264. In the trial court Jones conceded she knew the overpayment 5 did not belong to her and that she was obligated to pay American Airlines in accordance with the federal court's judgment. Id. at 270. The trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fbd90f-6026-4c4c-9084-1f51761b5f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11181649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: On June 13, 2025, Caroldene filed a Protected Property Claim Form with the Montgomery County Clerk. Caroldene claimed, \"Some of my money or property has been frozen or taken. It is protected and should be returned to me because it is: . . . Tax-deferred retirement accounts, like 401(k) and IRA accounts.\" She requested a hearing and asked that the money or property be returned to her. The mandamus The distribution of assets and closing of the estate is the subject of Appeal 1 Number 09-25-00167-CV, In the Estate of Aletha Cahill Wolf. 2 record contains an Account Statement dated May 1-31, 2025, for a Contributory IRA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fbd90f-6026-4c4c-9084-1f51761b5f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11181649-11181649","title":"CourtListener opinion 11181649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): dene filed a Protected Property Claim Form with the Montgomery County Clerk. Caroldene claimed, \"Some of my money or property has been frozen or taken. It is protected and should be returned to me because it is: . . . Tax-deferred retirement accounts, like 401(k) and IRA accounts.\" She requested a hearing and asked that the money or property be returned to her. The mandamus The distribution of assets and closing of the estate is the subject of Appeal 1 Number 09-25-00167-CV, In the Estate of Aletha Cahill Wolf. 2 record contains an Account Statement dated May 1-31, 2025, for a Contributory IRA of Caroldene M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11182274 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Jon Lynn Kinning. Extracted reporter citation: 960 P.2d 722. Docket: 25CA0072 City and County of Denver District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11182274 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: with counsel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisfy the May 2 and June 13 [o]rders. The May 2, 2024"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): r, husband was present with counsel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisf"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: . December 2 Order ¶ 14 The firm also contends that the December 2, 2024, order is unfair. To get there, it says that \"if a QDRO is to be used as the [district] court directed, neither [w]ife nor [the] [f]irm will get paid, as [the] [f]irm cannot be an alternate payee under the QDRO, and [h]usband will happily sit back and smile as the years continue to slip by without having to pay anyone.\" The firm gives us no supporting legal analysis. So, we decline to address the issue. See In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (an appellate court may decline to consider an argument not supported by legal authorit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171e40dd-61cf-4935-a3a5-5aad620261d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11182274-11182274","title":"CourtListener opinion 11182274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25CA0072 City and County of Denver District","extracted_reporter_citation":"960 P.2d 722","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisfy the May 2 and June 13 [o]rders. The May 2, 2024"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b5e912b-7b22-474a-bb27-7765121db18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111","title":"CourtListener opinion 11191111","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11191111 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11191111 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b5e912b-7b22-474a-bb27-7765121db18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111","title":"CourtListener opinion 11191111","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b5e912b-7b22-474a-bb27-7765121db18d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11191111-11191111","title":"CourtListener opinion 11191111","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lication, which is hereby REINSTATED. Furthermore, it appears that the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding – what used to be called \"deprivation\" under the old juvenile code. See OCGA § 15-11-2 (22). Although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency or deprivation finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are direc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11192244 Extracted case name: SPONSLER v. SPONSLER. Docket: A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11192244 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Ex-husband to execute a quitclaim deed, which would allow Ex-wife to sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed in that appeal. Id. at 605 (3). In May 2018, after reman"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed in that appeal. Id. at 605 (3). In May 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5149438d-b19f-4667-9242-ba00fe346596","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192244-11192244","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d to execute a quitclaim deed, which would allow Ex-wife to sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab89e7b-f71c-4b28-93d9-d5464eb106f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11192480 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11192480 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab89e7b-f71c-4b28-93d9-d5464eb106f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab89e7b-f71c-4b28-93d9-d5464eb106f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11192480-11192480","title":"CourtListener opinion 11192480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t's order finding C. L. W. to be dependent and awarding temporary custody of the child to his foster parents. No application is required, however, because the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding, and although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are directly appealable)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4838050-ddcc-4dc6-a4dd-12527f3dd42e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11193046 Extracted case name: SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11193046 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4838050-ddcc-4dc6-a4dd-12527f3dd42e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4838050-ddcc-4dc6-a4dd-12527f3dd42e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er 08, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A23A0250. FERDINAND FARLEY, SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY n/k/a BRENDA PARHAM MURRAY. Ferdinand Farley, Sr., (\"Farley\") filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered following his divorce from Brenda Parham Farley n/k/a Brenda Parham Murray. The trial court entered an order finding the QDRO unambiguous, and Farley appeals.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction. Appeals from \"judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases\" must be made by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4838050-ddcc-4dc6-a4dd-12527f3dd42e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193046-11193046","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A23A0250. FERDINAND FARLEY, SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY n/k/a BRENDA PARHAM MURRAY. Ferdinand Farley, Sr., (\"Farley\") filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered following his divorce from Brenda Parham Farley n/k/a Brenda Parham Murray. The trial court entered an order finding the QDRO unambiguous, and Farley appeals.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction. Appeals from \"judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases\" must be made by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"008065a7-ec4d-4967-b304-e29b06c7e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11193786 Extracted case name: BROOKS v. BROOKS. HODGES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11193786 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"008065a7-ec4d-4967-b304-e29b06c7e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"008065a7-ec4d-4967-b304-e29b06c7e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecifically, Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that \"[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . .\" A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments, however, and pursuant to Section 1 (b) of the settlement agreement, following his retirement, Vinci is entitled to 32.5 percent of all Form 1099 income. According to Charles, awarding Vinci 82.5 percent of his pension income leaves him with very little remaining income while providing Vinci wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"008065a7-ec4d-4967-b304-e29b06c7e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the arbitrator overstepped his authority. We will address them in turn. (a) The Evidence Charles argues that the arbitrator ignored the intention of the parties in interpreting the divorce decree because the award allows Vinci to \"double dip\" into his pension. Specifically, Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that \"[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . .\" A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"008065a7-ec4d-4967-b304-e29b06c7e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11193786-11193786","title":"CourtListener opinion 11193786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that \"[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . .\" A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments, however, and pursuant to Section 1 (b) of the settlement agreement, following his retirement, Vinci is entitled to 32.5 percent of all Form 1099 income. According to Charles, awarding Vinci 82.5 percent of his pension income leaves him with very little remaining income while providing Vinci wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74e61950-2a34-401a-b90b-21f3fc31b7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461","title":"CourtListener opinion 11194461","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11194461 Extracted case name: DUNN v. DUNN. BROWN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11194461 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74e61950-2a34-401a-b90b-21f3fc31b7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461","title":"CourtListener opinion 11194461","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74e61950-2a34-401a-b90b-21f3fc31b7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461","title":"CourtListener opinion 11194461","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rksheet 2 We note that six months after the final order was entered, the parties appeared for a hearing, where counsel explained that the trial court incarcerated Husband for failing to provide information requested in the final order so that the qualified domestic relations order could be entered. Apparently, Husband had filed a financial affidavit indicating he had retirement assets of $125,000; the retirement statement sent to Wife's counsel so that Husband could \"gain his freedom\" from incarceration had \"a substantial amount missing\" because the account balance indicated an amount of $7,501.19. 14 as mandated by OCGA § 19-6-15"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74e61950-2a34-401a-b90b-21f3fc31b7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11194461-11194461","title":"CourtListener opinion 11194461","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: iled to do so[.] [F]or this reason, the [c]ourt finds that all the interest in the real property was marital.\" 17 trial court as factfinder and neither party asked the trial court to make factual findings, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's equitable distribution of marital property was improper as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Messaadi v. Messaadi, 282 Ga. 126, 128 (1) (646 SE2d 230) (2007). Accordingly, there is no merit in Husband's claim that the final order should be reversed because it fails to resolve all contested issues concerning the real property. See id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f6a22c3-88ff-48b9-8ec2-7db4151af48e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866","title":"CourtListener opinion 11196866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11196866 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11196866 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f6a22c3-88ff-48b9-8ec2-7db4151af48e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866","title":"CourtListener opinion 11196866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f6a22c3-88ff-48b9-8ec2-7db4151af48e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866","title":"CourtListener opinion 11196866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ient agreed to pay Gillum a total of $4,900 to represent him in his ongoing divorce case, paying $2,500 up front with the remainder to be paid in installments. He was at 8 risk of being held in contempt of court and needed Gillum to review and approve a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") drafted by opposing counsel. Although the client informed Gillum that the QDRO had an incorrect amount on it and she advised him that she would correct the error, Gillum submitted the order without making this correction, and the court signed and issued it. After the client questioned Gillum about this error, Gillum advised the client that sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f6a22c3-88ff-48b9-8ec2-7db4151af48e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11196866-11196866","title":"CourtListener opinion 11196866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d to pay Gillum a total of $4,900 to represent him in his ongoing divorce case, paying $2,500 up front with the remainder to be paid in installments. He was at 8 risk of being held in contempt of court and needed Gillum to review and approve a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") drafted by opposing counsel. Although the client informed Gillum that the QDRO had an incorrect amount on it and she advised him that she would correct the error, Gillum submitted the order without making this correction, and the court signed and issued it. After the client questioned Gillum about this error, Gillum advised the client that sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11198732 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thornley. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11198732 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ses where a trial court allocated property in lieu of maintenance, the payee has been awarded additional assets, rather than being awarded fewer debts. See In re Marriage of Celani, 2021 IL App (1st) 201085-U, ¶ 11 (trial court granted to the wife her full retirement plan \"in lieu of maintenance\"). Heather contends that granting assets in lieu of maintenance \"makes logical sense\" so that the \"receiving spouse gets their money up front.\" She notably overlooks the fact that the division of - 18 - property in Celani also involved granting the husband most of the marital debt and declining to award additional maintenance."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n, including both valuations for the marital property provided by each party: Marital Assets Zachary Heather Bigelow Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: w Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46,934.26 Residence Cadillac Auto Loan $47,569.68 Mercedes Auto Loan $41,173.60 JP Companies $18,890.31 T-H Professional $2,846.20 Ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de9a362-76a7-4a94-91f3-b49bbf78d543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11198732-11198732","title":"CourtListener opinion 11198732","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: th valuations for the marital property provided by each party: Marital Assets Zachary Heather Bigelow Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46,934.26 Residence Cad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11199361 Extracted reporter citation: 454 P.3d 1092. Docket: 48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199361 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arding Terry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erry\") and Xiomara Robirds. Terry appeals from the district court's decision on intermediate appeal, which affirmed the decision of the magistrate court to (1) set aside a stipulated judgment regarding property distribution and (2) characterize all of Terry's retirement accounts as community property, to be divided equally as of the date of divorce. On appeal, Terry argues that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's rulings and in failing to award Terry attorney fees on intermediate appeal. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the decision of the district court. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e parties' property and ascertaining the composition of the marital estate, especially as it concerned the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts. Terry asserts that because he testified that the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts are employer sponsored 401(k) accounts funded by contributions of his earnings from employment, which ended prior to the marriage, the accounts, including any passive income generated by those accounts, are necessarily his separate property with no further proof required. We disagree. Notwithstanding Terry and Xiomara's divergent legal positions, the law for making such determinations"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c781af16-9c9d-4cbe-bf75-91cf091c17e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199361-11199361","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11199572 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 302 P.3d 357. Docket: 42875 LINDA C. KESTING. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199572 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sting (\"Linda\"), obtained a judgment against Respondent, James Kesting (\"James\"), for breach of an alimony/spousal support agreement entered into during their divorce. When that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: itionally, James argues that the QDRO was not made pursuant to Idaho's \"domestic relations law\" because, in Idaho, a non-merged spousal support agreement is only enforceable under contract law. Both parties agree that while a QDRO is usually used to divide a retirement plan upon divorce, a QDRO may be used enforce a judgment to collect delinquent support payments. We 3 have not previously addressed this issue, but we agree with other courts that have concluded that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a prior support obligation. See Stinner v. Stinner, 554 A.2d 45, 48 (Pa. 1989) (holding that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Linda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0e3f317-a3f9-4fd9-b9c7-6a123da0d3d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199572-11199572","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Linda timely appealed. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Linda filed suit alleging that James breached a spousal support agreement entered into by the parties during their divorce. The support agreement was a separate agreement not merged into their divorce decree or approved by the court in that proceeding. The agreement in question dealt only"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11199766 Extracted reporter citation: 303 P.3d 214. Docket: 50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199766 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ates that withholdings and contributions will be governed by Idaho law applicable to PERSI. PERSI is a state-created retirement plan under I.C. § 59-1301, et seq., and PERSI accounts are an asset that can be 13 split between divorcing spouses pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. I.C. §§ 59-1317, -1319. The magistrate court evaluated all the evidence related to the PERSI Choice 401(k) plan and found that Chris's wages partially funded the account and Chris retained control over the funds in the account. The magistrate court further concluded that although penalties might exist for withdrawal, Chris could access the funds at any ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ount, unbeknownst to Shawnee. Chris preserved this recording for two years prior to instituting divorce proceedings and introduced it as evidence of Shawnee's intent to transmute the EJJTROS account to community property. 2 Chris and Shawnee have additional retirement accounts and other assets. The division of the other accounts and assets is not at issue on appeal. 2 In 2012, the City of Idaho Falls (the City), Chris's employer, and the local firefighters' union negotiated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rity Act. Id. at 559, 82 P.3d at 841. The Supreme Court noted that the Tier I benefits were not divisible by a court upon divorce. Id. at 560, 82 P.3d at 842. The other component, commonly called Tier II benefits, is an additional annuity that, like a private pension plan, is tied to the earnings and career service. Id. at 559-60, 82 P.3d at 841-42. The Tier II benefit also had a component similar to divorced spouse's benefits under the Social Security Act. Id. The wife sought a portion of the Tier II benefits pursuant to the divorce. Id. Chris argues the Tier 1 benefits are equivalent to the firefighters having their"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29274926-c12e-46b7-8bfd-b8543537e2db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11199766-11199766","title":"CourtListener opinion 11199766","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH","extracted_reporter_citation":"303 P.3d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): iated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributing to Social Security, the City would contribute an equivalent amount of money into a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Each firefighter had to affirmatively elect and create a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Once a firefighter created the account, the City would make mandatory deposits to the account. Once those deposits were made, each firefighter, including Chris, had the ability to move or withdraw the funds. After marriage, Chris moved into Shawnee's house on Nat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47710135-96b3-4670-9aa1-69ff91f6da36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756","title":"CourtListener opinion 11200756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"89 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11200756 Extracted case name: K.T. v. E.S. Extracted reporter citation: 89 Cal.App.5th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11200756 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47710135-96b3-4670-9aa1-69ff91f6da36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756","title":"CourtListener opinion 11200756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"89 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47710135-96b3-4670-9aa1-69ff91f6da36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756","title":"CourtListener opinion 11200756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"89 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ajwa's motion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. She asserts Mateen has failed to pay ongoing child support, refused to cooperate with Najwa to refinance the family home, and failed to pay his share of attorney fees for preparation of qualified domestic relations orders. She also notes the trial court previously sanctioned Mateen for failing to participate in good faith settlement discussions, among other things. She argues Mateen's noncompliance demonstrates an \"attitude of contempt\" sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. We decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal. \"‘An appellate court has the i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47710135-96b3-4670-9aa1-69ff91f6da36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11200756-11200756","title":"CourtListener opinion 11200756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"89 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. She asserts Mateen has failed to pay ongoing child support, refused to cooperate with Najwa to refinance the family home, and failed to pay his share of attorney fees for preparation of qualified domestic relations orders. She also notes the trial court previously sanctioned Mateen for failing to participate in good faith settlement discussions, among other things. She argues Mateen's noncompliance demonstrates an \"attitude of contempt\" sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. We decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal. \"‘An appellate court has the i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11202293 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.W.2d 96. Docket: of monthly checks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11202293 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y payments. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA \"free and clear of any claim by [husband],\" and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund pension, \"subject to [husband's] marital interest, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).\" The district court awarded husband his MSRS pension, \"subject to [wife's] marital interest, pursuant to a QDRO\" and ordered husband to continue to list wife as a 100% survivor beneficiary while in disability or retirement status. In August 2023, wife's counsel asked the district court to clarify two issues with its June 2023 order. First, cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ge and costs would be paid from the proceeds of the sale, that wife would be 2 paid the amount of the equity balancing payment, and that husband would receive the remainder. As for the pensions, the district court found that wife had an interest in two retirement accounts—the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA and the Northern Minnesota- Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund. It also found that husband had an interest in a pension with the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) and that wife was listed as a 100% survivor on husband's MSRS disability retirement plan while he received disability payments. The district court awarded w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the remainder. As for the pensions, the district court found that wife had an interest in two retirement accounts—the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA and the Northern Minnesota- Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund. It also found that husband had an interest in a pension with the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) and that wife was listed as a 100% survivor on husband's MSRS disability retirement plan while he received disability payments. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA \"free and clear of any claim by [husband],\" and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d8e703-ec4e-47f4-9d1a-1cb3d9da1ff7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202293-11202293","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.W.2d 96","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA \"free and clear of any claim by [husband],\" and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund pension, \"subject to [husband's] marital interest, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).\" The district court awarded husband his MSRS pension, \"subject to [wife's] marital interest, pursuant to a QDRO\" and ordered husband to continue to list wife as a 100% survivor beneficiary while in disability or retirement status. In August 2023, wife's counsel asked the district court to clarify two issues with its June 2023 order. First, cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34df9f3c-e0c8-4109-a06c-52f388eea493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA1918 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"126 P.3d 196","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11202666 Extracted reporter citation: 126 P.3d 196. Docket: 24CA1918 Arapahoe County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11202666 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34df9f3c-e0c8-4109-a06c-52f388eea493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA1918 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"126 P.3d 196","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34df9f3c-e0c8-4109-a06c-52f388eea493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA1918 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"126 P.3d 196","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 24CA1918 McBride v Johnson 11-13-2025 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1918 Arapahoe County District Court No. 19CV32302 Honorable J. Steven Patrick, Judge Steven R. McBride d/b/a McBride QDRO Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice A. Johnson, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division V Opinion by JUDGE YUN Freyre and Pawar, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced November 13, 2025 Richard K. Rufner, Maineville, Ohio, for Pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34df9f3c-e0c8-4109-a06c-52f388eea493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11202666-11202666","title":"CourtListener opinion 11202666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA1918 Arapahoe County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"126 P.3d 196","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ken from a prior opinion of a division of this court. See McBride v. Johnson, (Colo. App. No. 22CA1074, Aug. 3, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). ¶3 Johnson is a licensed Colorado attorney who specializes in the preparation of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). Id., slip op. at ¶ 3. McBride, who is not a licensed attorney, is trained and experienced in preparing, filing, and obtaining approval of QDROs. Id. ¶4 In November 2016, Johnson filed a complaint with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel alleging that McBride was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing QDROs on beh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0efa021c-3f5c-4d6b-bee6-a16e9540d0e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817","title":"CourtListener opinion 11203817","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11203817 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11203817 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0efa021c-3f5c-4d6b-bee6-a16e9540d0e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817","title":"CourtListener opinion 11203817","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0efa021c-3f5c-4d6b-bee6-a16e9540d0e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11203817-11203817","title":"CourtListener opinion 11203817","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urt to \"scrutinize[ ]\" the \"legal merits\" 3 See Lawson v. Godderz, Case No. 25-2199-JWB. of \"each order\" in the state court divorce and child-custody proceedings). Thus, as Plaintiff seeks this court to review or overrule the state court custody and other domestic relations orders, such actions are barred by the domestic-relations exception to federal court jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that overcome the well-established principle that \"divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.\" Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). While rare instances exist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11204914 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 4049-23. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11204914 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: divorce documents for them because he and Ms. Lopez tried to make the divorce as fair as possible. Paragraph 6 of the FJOD provides: Husband has pension benefits earned while an employee with the State of New Jersey. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and the cost for preparation shall be shared by both parties. Husband has an application currently pending for a disability pension retroactive to the date of his disability. In the event that Husband receives retroactive benefits, Wife shall be entitled to share in those retroactive benefits; however, the amount of her benefits sha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: letter dated March 18, 2020 (Decision Letter), the Board adopted the conclusion of an administrative law judge that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled from performing his regular and assigned duties and approved petitioner for ordinary disability retirement benefits effective as of July 1, 2014. When petitioner applied for benefits in 2014, he selected the \"Maximum Option\" under the PERS regulations which provided him with the highest possible monthly income but with no survivor benefits. On March 22, 2017, petitioner and Ms. Lopez signed a Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) in the State of New Jersey. Ms. Lopez was r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: were married from 2005 to 2017. 2 During their marriage and until 2013, petitioner was an electrician employed by the State of New Jersey. In 2013, he sustained a severe injury at work and was permanently disabled. In 2014, petitioner applied for a disability pension claim to the board of trustees (Board) of the New Jersey Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). In a letter dated March 18, 2020 (Decision Letter), the Board adopted the conclusion of an administrative law judge that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled from performing his regular and assigned duties and approved petitioner for ordinary disa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1857bb92-b2ec-47a2-9762-9b63ff6653ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11204914-11204914","title":"CourtListener opinion 11204914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4049-23","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ports the conclusion that the parties understood that the PERS regulations would be followed, including the PERS regulation which states that \"[a]ll withholdings mandated under a matrimonial order shall cease upon the death of either the retired member or the alternate payee.\" N.J. Admin. Code § 17:1-1.12(c) (2009). Finally, petitioner argues that the Consent Order does not change the analysis that petitioner would not remain liable to make the payment in the event of Ms. Lopez's death because the Consent Order is best viewed as a satisfaction of the FJOD, which incorporated the limitations of PERS. As discussed below, we hold"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11206541 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeBenedetti & Ensberg. Extracted reporter citation: 110 Cal.App.5th 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11206541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]\"; and (2) \"any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed].\"2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some community property. In the proceedings below, Jeffrey contended the provisions of the sett"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: udgment the court could sign. Two of the terms the parties agreed on were: (1) \"as to property allocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]\"; and (2) \"any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed].\"2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some commun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: would fall because of this.\" Regarding the QDRO provision, Jeffrey's counsel explained the parties added that language \"only pursuant to discussions we had, which I believe is frequently the case -- there's an article about it -- but the retirement plans or ERISA government plans sometimes require QDRO's either to confirm a retirement plan to 7 the employee spouse so that they're insulated from the unemployee [sic] spouse coming back after them.\" He added, \"it was no harm, no foul to include that provision.\" Julie's counsel countered that, had the parties intended for each spouse to keep the contents of the reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d9dc8ea-7135-4a0a-acd7-c48b43273b58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11206541-11206541","title":"CourtListener opinion 11206541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rty. Each spouse valued the car differently, but both agreed it should be distributed to Julie. A 2008 BMW—also community property—was allocated to Jeffrey. Listed under \"RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS\" on page 5 of Exhibit 240 are (among other accounts): \"Brightsphere 401K Plan,\" \"TCW P/S & Savings Plan,\" and \"Charles Schwab IRA.\" Under the columns indicating how the parties proposed to distribute the community property portion of these assets, both Jeffrey and Julie stated the entirety of the \"Brightsphere 401K Plan\" and \"TCW P/S & Savings Plan\" would be distributed to Jeffrey, with nothing distributed to Julie, and the enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11216613 Extracted reporter citation: 211 F.3d 938. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11216613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d by $385.26 to cover the cost of the \"qualified joint survivor annuity\" (the surviving spouse annuity), 1 which provides his former spouse with reduced monthly payments upon Gasper's death. According to Gasper, the \"qualified domestic relations order\" (QDRO) entered after his divorce required that any \"cost\" of the surviving spouse annuity be deducted from his former spouse's portion of the plan benefit and should not result in a reduction to his portion of the benefit. Gasper also seeks \"statutory penalties\" based on the plan administrator's purported failure to provide Gasper with certain plan docume"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 4-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1959 DAVID GASPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EIDP, INC., f/k/a E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company; CORTEVA INC.; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: December 8, 2025 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: A4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1959 DAVID GASPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EIDP, INC., f/k/a E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company; CORTEVA INC.; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: December 8, 2025 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"201c4146-465d-41c6-8012-dce8175ee7d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11216613-11216613","title":"CourtListener opinion 11216613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"211 F.3d 938","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ND & KNIGHT LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 16 BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge: David Gasper filed the present action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024, 1132, against his former employer and retirement plan administrator. Gasper primarily asserts that his monthly annuity payment improperly was reduced by $385.26 to cover the cost of the \"qualified joint survivor annuity\" (the surviving spouse annuity), 1 which provides his former spouse with reduced monthly payments upon Gasper'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11225987 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeBenedetti & Ensberg. Extracted reporter citation: 110 Cal.App.5th 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11225987 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]\"; and (2) \"any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed].\"2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some community property. In the proceedings below, Jeffrey contended the provisions of the sett"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: udgment the court could sign. Two of the terms the parties agreed on were: (1) \"as to property allocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]\"; and (2) \"any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed].\"2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some commun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: would fall because of this.\" Regarding the QDRO provision, Jeffrey's counsel explained the parties added that language \"only pursuant to discussions we had, which I believe is frequently the case -- there's an article about it -- but the retirement plans or ERISA government plans sometimes require QDRO's either to confirm a retirement plan to 7 the employee spouse so that they're insulated from the unemployee [sic] spouse coming back after them.\" He added, \"it was no harm, no foul to include that provision.\" Julie's counsel countered that, had the parties intended for each spouse to keep the contents of the reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9205f37-6a80-4d76-9c05-d70c3c899614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11225987-11225987","title":"CourtListener opinion 11225987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"110 Cal.App.5th 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rty. Each spouse valued the car differently, but both agreed it should be distributed to Julie. A 2008 BMW—also community property—was allocated to Jeffrey. Listed under \"RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS\" on page 5 of Exhibit 240 are (among other accounts): \"Brightsphere 401K Plan,\" \"TCW P/S & Savings Plan,\" and \"Charles Schwab IRA.\" Under the columns indicating how the parties proposed to distribute the community property portion of these assets, both Jeffrey and Julie stated the entirety of the \"Brightsphere 401K Plan\" and \"TCW P/S & Savings Plan\" would be distributed to Jeffrey, with nothing distributed to Julie, and the enti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11226852 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. THOMAS A. STEWART. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11226852 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Briefs October 1, 2025 KENNETH KELLY, ET AL. v. THOMAS A. STEWART Appeal from the Chancery Court for Montgomery County No. MC-CH-CV-CD-20-20 Ben Dean, Chancellor No. M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This appeal concerns the garnishment of an inherited Individual Retirement Account. Advanced Hearing Aid Group, LLC (\"AHAG\"), Gary Kelly, Kenneth Kelly, and Matthew Kelly (\"Plaintiffs,\" collectively) filed an application for writ of garnishment in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (\"the Trial Court\") against Thomas A. Stewart (\"Defendant\"). Plaintiffs sought to collect a judgment against Defendant stemming from a lawsuit over AHAG."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e payable to a participant or beneficiary from a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code—and \"any interest\" thereon—are exempt from all claims of creditors except the State of Tennessee and \"claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order[.]\" Additionally, the debtor's records concerning the plan and the plan's records concerning the debtor's participation in the plan are exempt from the subpoena process. Because Mr. Hill's IRA undisputedly falls within section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is exempt from the subpoena process, garnishmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iciary from a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code—and \"any interest\" thereon—are exempt from all claims of creditors except the State of Tennessee and \"claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order[.]\" Additionally, the debtor's records concerning the plan and the plan's records concerning the debtor's participation in the plan are exempt from the subpoena process. Because Mr. Hill's IRA undisputedly falls within section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is exempt from the subpoena process, garnishment, and execution by judgment creditors, i.e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dbab6db-bd24-4a06-80af-701d88dcb5ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11226852-11226852","title":"CourtListener opinion 11226852","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: f the Inherited -12- IRA. They argue that the mere fact Defendant ultimately benefits from the funds in the Revocable Trust does not mean that it and he are functionally the same. For illustrative purposes, Plaintiffs cite 26 C.F.R. § 1.408-8(c), in which a surviving spouse may elect to treat an inherited IRA as her own should she be the sole beneficiary of the IRA, as an example that the distinction between individuals and trusts matters in the context of identifying the rights of beneficiaries: \"In order to make the election described in this paragraph (c)(1), the surviving spouse must be the sole beneficiary of the IRA and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11228237 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 578 S.W.3d 356. Docket: 2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11228237 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civilian employment. The UPS account is a private sector retirement plan, so it falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military retirement was \"short, vague, and ambiguous.\"1 The parties entered into a subsequent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ly benefit. The Holdens separated in 2011. Divorce proceedings were protracted due to custody discussions regarding two then minor children, challenges accompanying the sale of a marital home, accounting issues related to the division of Husband's future retirement benefits, and an acknowledged filing error in the clerk's office. Due to these various delays, although the property settlement agreement was filed in 2012, the final decree of dissolution was not officially entered until 2013. -2- Husband has two vested retirements: he is entitled to receive defined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military retirement was \"short, vague, and ambiguous.\"1 The parties entered into a subsequent agreement in 2014 to clarify matters. Per this agreement, Husband agreed to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de4ac830-64d9-4d18-b310-da92e8e833c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11228237-11228237","title":"CourtListener opinion 11228237","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 S.W.3d 356","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d has two vested retirements: he is entitled to receive defined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civilian employment. The UPS account is a private sector retirement plan, so it falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30fdff7c-29de-4746-9064-ce9d1e690a87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034","title":"CourtListener opinion 11229034","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-24-00256-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11229034 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-24-00256-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11229034 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30fdff7c-29de-4746-9064-ce9d1e690a87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034","title":"CourtListener opinion 11229034","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-24-00256-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30fdff7c-29de-4746-9064-ce9d1e690a87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034","title":"CourtListener opinion 11229034","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-24-00256-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n a divorce proceeding \"in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction.\" Gillin v. Gillin, 307 S.W.3d 395, 397 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.). However, the trial court may only divide disposable retired pay, which \"excludes disability pay, including retirement benefits that may be waived in order to collect disability benefits.\" Id. at 397–98. \"A divorce court cannot apportion military retirement pay which has been waived to receive Veterans Administration disability benefits.\" Id. at 398. A trial court cannot expressly or impliedly prohibit a retired military member from electing to waive his retirement pay to recei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30fdff7c-29de-4746-9064-ce9d1e690a87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034","title":"CourtListener opinion 11229034","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-24-00256-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that the military member spouse can agree to reimburse the ex-spouse if he waives retirement pay to take disability. However, no Texas court has made this determination. See Freeman, 133 S.W.3d at 280; Gillin, 307 S.W.3d at 398 (\"The first provision of the domestic relations order provides that any election of benefits that may be made by Kevin ‘shall' not reduce the amount of retired pay awarded to Lori, and specifically prohibits Kevin from waiving military retired pay in order to receive disability benefits. The trial court erred in restricting Kevin's right to elect disability.\"); Loria v. Loria, 189 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30fdff7c-29de-4746-9064-ce9d1e690a87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11229034-11229034","title":"CourtListener opinion 11229034","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-24-00256-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: t dispositive. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. 6 III. IRREVOCABLE MSA By her first cross-issue, appellee contends that there was no meeting of the minds when the parties signed the MSA. A. Applicable Law Divorcing spouses may agree to the division of their community property by either executing a settlement agreement \"which ‘may be revised or repudiated before rendition of the divorce,'\" or they \"may choose to execute a settlement agreement\" pursuant to § 6.602 of the Texas Family Code that is binding on the parties as soon as it is executed, and each party is \"entitled to judgment on the agreement notwithstanding Rule 11,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"225bf1d0-863f-48aa-a8a3-d4578779752d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628","title":"CourtListener opinion 11231628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0231 Jefferson County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11231628 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Teruel De Torres. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24CA0231 Jefferson County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11231628 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"225bf1d0-863f-48aa-a8a3-d4578779752d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628","title":"CourtListener opinion 11231628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0231 Jefferson County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"225bf1d0-863f-48aa-a8a3-d4578779752d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11231628-11231628","title":"CourtListener opinion 11231628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24CA0231 Jefferson County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lated to the child's name, the court must then consider whether the content-based restriction or requirement is narrowly tailored to justify it. ¶ 65 As guidance, we turn to how courts in other jurisdictions have analyzed \"non-disparagement\" clauses in domestic relations orders. We recognize that non-disparagement clauses are not directly on point, but we view the free speech analyses concerning these provisions to be analogous to the free speech considerations concerning the parents' name issue. We do not opine as to the 35 constitutionality of a non-disparagement order generally but look at cases in which the court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11232567 Docket: 15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11232567 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as a 401k account in his name through his employment with Mirka, USA. Wife is to receive $43,000.00 from that account. WIFE shall be entitled to any gains and losses in the market until such time as the funds are removed from the accounts and divided. The QDRO shall comply with the requirements of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 to establish a qualified domestic relations order, and both parties agree they will make any modifications necessary to qualify the order. (Doc. No. 59). Pursuant to the agreement, a QDRO was to be filed within 90 days after the \"final hearing.\" {¶9} A QDRO was prepared within 90"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: action or the show cause motion. Rather, on August 11, 2021, the parties -3- Case No. 15-25-05 entered into a \"Separation Agreement,\" which was incorporated into the Final Divorce Decree. The Separation Agreement divided the parties' property, including retirement benefits. The Separation Agreement read, in pertinent part: 5.02 HUSBAND has a 401k account in his name through his employment with Mirka, USA. Wife is to receive $43,000.00 from that account. WIFE shall be entitled to any gains and losses in the market until such time as the funds are removed from the accounts and divided. The QDRO shall comply with the requ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ment of the trial court. Background {¶2} This matter was initiated when Stacy filled a motion alleging Heath was in contempt for failing to comply with the parties' Final Divorce Decree. The alleged contempt centers on distribution of funds from Heath's 401(k). As there are discrepancies between the parties regarding the 401(k), loans taken from the 401(k), and knowledge of the loans taken from the 401(k), we will trace all the information related to Heath's 401(k) that is present in the record. {¶3} Heath and Stacy were married in November of 2007. In November of 2020, Heath filed for divorce. {¶4} In He"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82ba08b7-ae5e-48ca-aaf6-cd33149ee7d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232567-11232567","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: {¶32} However, perhaps the most compelling evidence against Stacy's contempt claim is the QDRO language that was signed by Stacy in July of 2022. The QDRO stated: 4. The \"Assigned Benefit\" or the portion of the Participant's Plan benefits payable to the Alternate Payee under this QDRO is: The applicable QDRO distribution which shall be determined based on the complete dollar amount, in full, attributable to the Participant as of August 11, 2021 (less any loan balance owed by the Participant) plus any gain/loss allocation applicable from that date to the date determined under the provisions of the Plan and is continge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11232673 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11232673 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nformation about any disability or retirement payments that he was receiving. {¶7} After Strong received information from STRS about payments being made to Powless, her counsel enlisted the assistance of a legal and actuarial consulting firm known as the QDRO Group. QDRO Group determined — after looking at Powless's information from STRS — that Powless was indeed receiving disability benefits in lieu of standard monthly retirement benefits and would continue to receive those benefits assuming that his condition remained unchanged and he did not return to work for STRS. Based on that information, combined wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: domestic-relations appeal that the trial court erred by approving Plaintiff Julie Strong's proposed division-of-property order that awarded her — in accordance with the parties' 2003 divorce decree under which Strong was entitled to one-half of Powless's \"retirement benefits\" — one-half of Powless's disability benefits that the trial court found he was receiving in lieu of retirement benefits. Strong in turn argues that we should dismiss this appeal because the April 3, 2025 judgment entry that Powless challenges was not, in her view, a final and appealable order. For the reasons explained below, we deny Strong's motion to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d affirm the trial court's judgment. The Key Facts and Procedural History {¶2} Strong and Powless were married for over 20 years before their marriage was terminated by a 2003 divorce decree, which provided that Strong was \"awarded one- half of the state pension and/or retirement benefits\" that Powless had earned during their marriage. {¶3} Strong alleges that several years after the 2003 divorce in this case, she learned that Powless was receiving disability benefits instead of retirement benefits. (Strong was not then receiving either type of benefit under the divorce decree.) Strong in February 2024 filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51fe5500-f7f7-4a8b-8dea-1bfe6acbcfc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11232673-11232673","title":"CourtListener opinion 11232673","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: le order in this case. {¶9} A trial court's decision regarding the division of retirement benefits in a divorce action may be implemented through the issuance of a qualified domestic-relations order (QDRO), which \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits\" payable under a retirement plan. Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6–7. Such orders dividing retirement benefits payable by one of Ohio's public retirement systems are referred to as division-of-property orders (DOPO) because they must comply with cert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11239633 Extracted case name: E.R. v. B.R. Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.3d 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11239633 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the case had been contested and that the parties had submitted their issues to the trial court to decide. The trial court awarded to Thomas \"60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere\" and awarded to Coon \"40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)].\"4 The letter ruling did not contain the \"past, present, or future 2 In Baker, the supreme court clarified the requirements for a letter ruling to be considered a rendition. 687 S.W.3d at 292–93. Citing Baker, we remanded this case to the trial court in Coon II because the record before us did not show whether the February 15, 1996 letter rulin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 10-21 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction This dispute between Appellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Thomas arises from the division of Thomas's retirement benefits in their 1996 divorce. In 2021, the trial court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc on that division. See Coon v. Coon (Coon I), No. 02-21-00381-CV, 2022 WL 7232163, at *1 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Oct. 13, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Coon v. Coon (Coon II), No. 02-23- 00210-CV, 2024 WL 3896084, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 22, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ng also established the parties' possession of the children, ordered Coon to pay monthly child support, and ordered the sale of the parties' residence. 4 A QDRO is a \"species of post-divorce enforcement\" order that permits payment to an alternate payee of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits. Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *3 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that a QDRO is a 3 employment\" language included in the decree two months later. The trial court's August 16, 1996 QDROs dividing Thomas's FDIC 401k Savings Plan and her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28542612-eeb8-4868-a003-1c3fbfb2784f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11239633-11239633","title":"CourtListener opinion 11239633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *3 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that a QDRO is a 3 employment\" language included in the decree two months later. The trial court's August 16, 1996 QDROs dividing Thomas's FDIC 401k Savings Plan and her Thrift Savings Plan stated that the date of divorce was February 15, 1996; the QDROs awarded to Coon 40% of Thomas's vested plans as of that date. Neither party appealed either the decree or the QDROs. In 2021, Coon filed a petition for enforcement of the property division based on the decree's language. See Coon I, 2022 WL 723216"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a2f8648-fd6c-4abd-bb9d-290c12fd8cce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637","title":"CourtListener opinion 11240637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 U.S. 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11240637 Extracted reporter citation: 571 U.S. 415. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11240637 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a2f8648-fd6c-4abd-bb9d-290c12fd8cce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637","title":"CourtListener opinion 11240637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 U.S. 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a2f8648-fd6c-4abd-bb9d-290c12fd8cce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637","title":"CourtListener opinion 11240637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 U.S. 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Fenstermaker's account with the New York State and Local Retirement System? 5. Assuming, as the parties seem to agree, that there was no qualified domestic relations order (or anything similar) in effect as of the petition date, does the absence of a QDRO affect the answers to questions 3 and 4 above and, if so, how? 6. Do (i) specific plan documents creating or governing the New York City Employees' Retirement System and/or (ii) nonbankruptcy law applicable to that system impose a restriction on the transfer of beneficial interests? 7. Do (i) specific plan documents creating or governing the New Yor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a2f8648-fd6c-4abd-bb9d-290c12fd8cce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11240637-11240637","title":"CourtListener opinion 11240637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 U.S. 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d. These circumstances are not akin to those in decisions relied upon by Ms. Fenstermaker that were unfavorable to debtors. Thus, for the above reasons, the objection to Mr. Fenstermaker's exemption of the life insurance policy is overruled. Retirement/Pension Accounts On his second amended schedule A/B, Mr. Fenstermaker disclosed interests in two additional retirement or pension accounts—\"New York City Employees' Retirement\" and \"New York State Employees' Retirement\"—and indicated that these assets were related to his divorce, which remains pending. On amended schedule C, he claimed exemptions under federal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11243871 Extracted reporter citation: 812 S.W.2d 487. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11243871 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: etirement and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 stating that Kristy was entitled to 50 percent of the balance, as of December 12, 2012, of two retirement accounts Simon held with Edward Jones. In November 2021, Kristy filed a motion for a renewed QDRO. She alleged that she had been unaware of the entry of the 2014 QDRO and that no one had provided it to E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: T COURT V. [NO. 04DR-12-2118] KRISTY POCKRUS (NOW SAVOLD) HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Simon Pockrus appeals from the order of the Benton County Circuit Court directing that he equally divide his retirement accounts with his ex-wife, Kristy Savold, as they had agreed to do in their 2013 divorce. On appeal, Simon argues that Kristy's claim is barred by the statute of limitations, that she is not entitled to any gains on the accounts since the divorce, and that the award of attorney's fees should be reversed. We affirm. The parties' September 2013 divorce decree at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): parties that purported to fully and finally resolve all issues regarding property division, debt division, and alimony. The attached document was titled \"Memorandum of Understanding\" and stated, in part, as follows: The parties shall each divide 50/50 any 401k, profit sharing, retirement and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1fa5f85-8270-4edf-ab50-8c7249a79f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11243871-11243871","title":"CourtListener opinion 11243871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"812 S.W.2d 487","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 stating that Kristy was entitled to 50 percent of the balance, as of December 12, 2012, of two retirement accounts Simon held with Edward Jones. In November 2021, Kristy filed a motion for a renewed QDRO. She alleged that she had been unaware of the entry of the 2014 QDRO and that no one had provided it to E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11244250 Extracted case name: LLC v. F.W. Extracted reporter citation: 919 N.E.2d 333. Docket: 2-24-0652 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11244250 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ION ¶3 The instant appeal arises out of post-decree litigation concerning the dissolution of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second am"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second amended QDRO. While the petition for rule to show cause was pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: of this Agreement.\" But it has not been argued in this court or established in the record that petitioner's signature on the QDRO was \"necessary or proper\" to effectuate the division of the pension. We note that respondent conceded in pleadings below that \"ERISA does not require the parties' signature on a QDRO entered by the court.\" See Rynn v. Owens, 181 Ill. App. 3d 232, 235 (1989) (noting that any admissions that are not the product of mistake or inadvertence bind the pleader throughout the litigation.); Freedberg v. Ohio -12- 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U National Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 110938, ¶ 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae57dd9f-a4e6-4771-a002-2c7258dda3fd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244250-11244250","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-24-0652 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"919 N.E.2d 333","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e instant appeal arises out of post-decree litigation concerning the dissolution of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second am"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11244851 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Winters. Extracted reporter citation: 481 U.S. 619. Docket: 5-25-0283 Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11244851 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orth in the court's October 3, 2014, docket entry order. Paragraph J of the order stated, \"The gross retirement pay of Respondent's VA pension shall be divided equally between the parties commencing October 1, 2014. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO], if necessary, will be submitted to divide said pension. 3 Further, Respondent shall pay back Petitioner any money she loses if the Respondent opts for VA benefits or does anything to reduce Petitioner's share of Respondent's pension. Petitioner shall be awarded a survivor benefit designation (former spouse and child) for the purposes of receivi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: protects against that.\" She further explained that the USAA loan, that was between $10,000 and $12,000, was taken out in both their names with the purpose of being a bridge for the time between Jimmy's retirement from active duty and the initiation of his retirement benefits, which could take several months. Amy's counsel argued, citing Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987), that Jimmy's military retirement of $3,960 was subject to division by the court and asked it to award Amy 50% of his retirement. Counsel stated that they were not asking for a division of the VA benefits but were asking for the VA waiver clause to be place"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: support. 1 ¶5 On August 15, 2014, Jimmy filed a pro se answer to the petition requesting joint custody and alleging that Amy had the capacity to work. He further alleged that the parties had already disbursed their assets and liabilities, leaving only his pension for consideration. On September 4, 2014, a hearing was held. Jimmy testified that he was receiving between $3,960 and $3,980 monthly in military retirement. He received an additional $1,900 in VA disability funds but that amount would be reduced to $1,672 after the parties divorced based on the ages of the children. He also received between $150 and $25"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12ecddd1-479d-4607-ab14-92b0ef1ab09f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11244851-11244851","title":"CourtListener opinion 11244851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-25-0283 Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"481 U.S. 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: will be submitted to divide said pension. 3 Further, Respondent shall pay back Petitioner any money she loses if the Respondent opts for VA benefits or does anything to reduce Petitioner's share of Respondent's pension. Petitioner shall be awarded a survivor benefit designation (former spouse and child) for the purposes of receiving her 50% of the pension should Respondent predecease Petitioner.\" ¶8 On December 1, 2014, Jimmy obtained counsel who filed a motion for rehearing and modification of judgment, noting that credit cards were not addressed by the court. The motion further alleged that Jimmy already reimb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11248468 Extracted reporter citation: 712 S.W.3d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11248468 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: der constitutes improper modification under Section 9.007 or permissible enforcement of the decree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not have exceeded the scope of the trial court's continuing jurisdiction to enfo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tutes improper modification under Section 9.007 or permissible enforcement of the decree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9d3a4b2-d0d0-4104-be7b-c5c3680de034","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11248468-11248468","title":"CourtListener opinion 11248468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.3d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to enforce a decree when one spouse failed to maintain property of the community estate. The court of appeals held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because its order improperly modified the decree's property division. The court of appeals vacated the order and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The line between enforcement and modification of a judicial decree depends in large measure on the relief granted. The Family Code permits relief to redress a violation of the decree, including a recovery of damages from a breaching spouse's assets resulting from breac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11249459 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11249459 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y. The court joined Scholz's Estate (she had passed away after Kleinfeldt's death) as a nec- essary party. Then, invoking the substantial compliance doc- trine, the district court found that Kleinfeldt had successfully removed Langdon as the beneficiary of the retirement account and granted summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Scholz's estate. Because Kleinfeldt did not satisfy the substan- tial compliance test, we reverse. I A. PCA's Retirement Benefit Plan PCA operates an employee retirement benefit plan, the Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees (\"Plan\"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as the primary beneficiary of his retirement account. He directed his secretary to send a fax to the PCA Benefits Center requesting the Plan to \"remove [his] former spouse\" from his \"health, vision[,] and dental insur- ance and as a beneficiary from [his] 401k, pension[,] and life insurance accounts.\" Exhibit C. Presumably in response, PCA removed Langdon from Kleinfeldt's health, vision, and dental insurance. As for the retirement account, PCA changed Lang- don's status from \"spouse\" to \"ex-spouse\" but did not re- move her as the primary beneficiary. Kleinfeldt died on Janu- ary 16, 2023. C. Procedural History Following"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tisfy the substan- tial compliance test, we reverse. I A. PCA's Retirement Benefit Plan PCA operates an employee retirement benefit plan, the Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees (\"Plan\"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The Plan's governing documents provide the No. 25-1859 3 Committee with full discretion and authority to administer the Plan, including interpreting and applying the terms and conditions of the Plan. The plan documents also detail the method by which a participant can designate beneficiaries to the individual's re- tirement account. Moreover, participa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc0acb08-88ea-452e-8578-03700914d9bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249459-11249459","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249459","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): angdon as the primary beneficiary of his retirement account. He directed his secretary to send a fax to the PCA Benefits Center requesting the Plan to \"remove [his] former spouse\" from his \"health, vision[,] and dental insur- ance and as a beneficiary from [his] 401k, pension[,] and life insurance accounts.\" Exhibit C. Presumably in response, PCA removed Langdon from Kleinfeldt's health, vision, and dental insurance. As for the retirement account, PCA changed Lang- don's status from \"spouse\" to \"ex-spouse\" but did not re- move her as the primary beneficiary. Kleinfeldt died on Janu- ary 16, 2023. C. Procedural History F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11249986 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11249986 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the amount to contribute to the plan without his partners' consent; 3) by failing to find that husband's contributions to the plan were made on behalf of CBH, not by him individually; and 4) by failing to find that any qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that the circuit court attempted to enforce by order would violate ERISA and federal law. We disagree. When tasked with equitably distributing the marital assets, \"the trial court's job is a difficult one, and we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case.\" P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: reated to have a supplemental retirement savings plan\" for the owners and employees of CBH. Burns testified that the CBPP was \"a type of plan that provides particularly high earning individuals or business owners with the opportunity to invest in a deferred retirement account at a more significant level\" than traditional retirement accounts. He opined that using the plan is \"a way that you can invest a significant amount of your earnings in tax-advantage basis that you will be able to access in the future as you reach retirement age.\" -3- He added that the plan included \"limits in terms of how much of th[e] earnings can be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vorce in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (\"circuit court\"), granting Melissa A. V. Cox (\"wife\") a divorce from James A. Cox (\"husband\"). On appeal, husband contends that the circuit court erred: 1) when determining the value of the cash balance pension plan; 2) when finding that husband's income was $75,000 a month; and 3) when setting the amount of wife's spousal support. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 On October 5, 2022, wife filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a divorce from her husband. In support, she alleged that they had married on July 29, 2000, and that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"551bd4fb-d6e5-4d19-986d-551a825242b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11249986-11249986","title":"CourtListener opinion 11249986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the plan, the contributions each year would \"on average\" be \"over half the earnings of the company in total.\" During husband's testimony, he contended that \"the funding in excess of the benefit calculation, which is by contract and i[s] governed by . . . ERISA,\" could not be extracted from the plan and that \"[o]nce it is in the cash balance plan it is there.\" He agreed that \"the plan can be overfunded from time to time\" but also stated that the term \"overfunded\" was a \"technical definition\" that could be \"cherry-picked to whatever date that you want to determine funding.\" He further asserted that \"you have to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11252354 Extracted reporter citation: 697 F.3d 858. Docket: 45 at 7. The 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11252354 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ined as, \"[a]ll persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period.\" 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 \"The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class member"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: against Defendants John Muir Health (\"John Muir\") and the Board of Directors of John Muir 26 Health (\"Board\") (collectively, \"Defendants\"). Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) (\"Compl.\"). Defendants 27 are fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 1 they sponsor and provide to their employees. Compl. ¶ 1. Nado alleges that during the class 2 period – March 15, 2018, through the date of judgment – Defendants breached the duties owed to 3 the Plan and Plan participants by paying excessive recordkeeping and administrative service fees 4 and misallocating Plan forfeitures. Nado as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: eby affirms 16 the Settlement Class, defined as, \"[a]ll persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period.\" 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 \"The court must direct notice in a reasona"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfd618e1-aa99-473b-a6a4-7839a02af1a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11252354-11252354","title":"CourtListener opinion 11252354","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45 at 7. The 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"697 F.3d 858","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period.\" 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 \"The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be 24 bound by the proposal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c9d19a-f8d9-4d47-a75b-cb0fb5317919","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406","title":"CourtListener opinion 11258406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11258406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11258406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c9d19a-f8d9-4d47-a75b-cb0fb5317919","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406","title":"CourtListener opinion 11258406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c9d19a-f8d9-4d47-a75b-cb0fb5317919","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406","title":"CourtListener opinion 11258406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ilma Dapena Rodríguez Lcdo. Juan Forastieri Maldonado Lcdo. Mario Arroyo Maymi Lcda. Moraima Ríos Robles Lcda. Nicole Marie Bustelo Correo Materia: Adjudicación de beneficios de un plan de retiro regido por la Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA), cuando el participante del plan contrae segundas nupcias y no revoca el formulario de designación de beneficiario a favor de su primera esposa. Este documento constituye un documento oficial del Tribunal Supremo que está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del proceso de compilación y publicación oficial de las decisiones del Tribunal. Su distribución el"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c9d19a-f8d9-4d47-a75b-cb0fb5317919","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406","title":"CourtListener opinion 11258406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: s-- (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. (D) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order-- (i) does not require a plan to provide any type or form of benefit,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51c9d19a-f8d9-4d47-a75b-cb0fb5317919","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11258406-11258406","title":"CourtListener opinion 11258406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tanto, la administración y distribución de los beneficios debe ser conforme a los documentos del plan. 2 En cuanto a los requisitos que debe cumplir una orden de relaciones domésticas cualificadas las disposiciones correspondientes establecen que: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies-- (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11261842 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of LINH TU BAO TRAN and KRYSTAL BICH HUYEN VU HA. LINH TU BAO TRAN. Extracted reporter citation: 2 Cal.3d 557. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11261842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecember 5, 2020, the court entered judgment on reserved issues. That judgment stated Ha shall receive one-half of the community property interest in Tran's two retirement plans; attorney Richard Muir (who was neither Tran's nor Ha's counsel) shall prepare the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs); the date of marriage is August 1, 2004, and the date of separation is January 12, 2016, for purposes of drafting the QDROs; and \"[e]ach side is to pay one-half of the legal 4 fees/expenses pertaining to the drafting of the QDROs.\"2 It also noted the issue of attorney fees was reserved for further hearing. Tran appealed from the December 5, 2020"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: agree that the court shall reserve jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support and the current [s]pousal [s]upport [o]rder and [e]arnings [a]ssignment [o]rder remain in full force and effect.\" The MSA also stated Ha may have a community interest in Tran's retirement plans and \"[t]he court shall reserve jurisdiction over the division of community property including but not limited to the above-mentioned retirement plans.\" The MSA included a section entitled, \"costs of enforcement\" (capitalizations, boldface, and underscoring omitted), which provided as follows: \"In the event that either of the parties shall be required to b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2020, the court entered judgment on reserved issues. That judgment stated Ha shall receive one-half of the community property interest in Tran's two retirement plans; attorney Richard Muir (who was neither Tran's nor Ha's counsel) shall prepare the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs); the date of marriage is August 1, 2004, and the date of separation is January 12, 2016, for purposes of drafting the QDROs; and \"[e]ach side is to pay one-half of the legal 4 fees/expenses pertaining to the drafting of the QDROs.\"2 It also noted the issue of attorney fees was reserved for further hearing. Tran appealed from the December 5, 2020"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15a5a2b0-fbad-42d8-a6cc-cf563d34db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11261842-11261842","title":"CourtListener opinion 11261842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2 Cal.3d 557","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: and the current [s]pousal [s]upport [o]rder and [e]arnings [a]ssignment [o]rder remain in full force and effect.\" The MSA also stated Ha may have a community interest in Tran's retirement plans and \"[t]he court shall reserve jurisdiction over the division of community property including but not limited to the above-mentioned retirement plans.\" The MSA included a section entitled, \"costs of enforcement\" (capitalizations, boldface, and underscoring omitted), which provided as follows: \"In the event that either of the parties shall be required to bring any action or proceeding to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11263584 Extracted reporter citation: 394 P.3d 604. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11263584 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed, \"Yes.\" The master explained that he could preside over the hearing only if there were \"no points of dispute.\" Neither party indicated there were any points of dispute. When asked whether the parties planned to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)2 for Million's Coast Guard retirement benefits, Hubert responded that they did not have plans to get a QDRO and that Million \"agreed to pay [Hubert] half of his retirement\" through a mobile payment service at the beginning of 1 The parties valued the home at $440,000. There was an outstanding mortgage of the same amount on the home when Million and Hube"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , acting as his own lawyer in dissolution proceedings, represented to the superior court that he had agreed to equally divide his military benefits with his spouse. The veteran informed the court that the monthly payments he received from the government were \"retirement benefits,\" when in fact the benefits were CRSC. Both the veteran and his spouse explained their understanding of the terms of the agreement and expressly consented to those terms. The court accepted the agreement and incorporated it into a decree for the dissolution of marriage. The veteran was aware, either at the time of the dissolution or shortly thereafter, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Million was receiving monthly payments of $637 from the Coast Guard, which were clearly identified as \"retirement benefits\" in the petition. The petition represented that the parties had attached an agreement \"about the distribution of retirement or military pension benefits.\" Although there was no attachment, the petition form included a box that the parties could check if they did not plan to divide the retirement benefits listed in the petition. The box was not checked. Million and Hubert also agreed to the division of their other assets, with Hubert receiving the marital home.1 The petition also included a child cu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8804bd1f-4a5d-4e4b-bf15-694d6b3336e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11263584-11263584","title":"CourtListener opinion 11263584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 P.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ates Coast Guard when he married Diane Lynn Hubert in 2009. Their child was born the next year. They later purchased a home. Million retired from the Coast Guard in 2019. In 2022 Million and Hubert petitioned for dissolution of their marriage. They reached a property division agreement which was set out in writing in the petition. -2- 7802 Although both Hubert and Million consulted an attorney during negotiation of the agreement, both parties appeared without attorneys at the dissolution hearing. At the time of the dissolution Million was receiving monthly payments of $637 from the Coast Guard, which were clearly identified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11265398 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Scinto family residence. Extracted reporter citation: 815 P.2d 843. Docket: 37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11265398 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Marriage of Mathews, 70 Wn. App. 116 (1993), but misstates its holding. In In re Marriage of Mathews, this court found error when the trial court awarded indefinite maintenance equivalent to one-half of Donald Mathews' income to his divorcing spouse when a qualified domestic relations order already operated to transfer one-half of all retirement or disability income. This court found error when the combination of the two orders would have deprived Mathews of his half of the retirement income. Mathews does not stand for the proposition that a court is forbidden from awarding maintenance that extends beyond retirement. John Scinto also rel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd $669 for civil service retirement from John's paycheck. 3 No. 37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto He claims his net monthly income is $7,200 after also deducting for income taxes. John also monthly deducts an amount from his paycheck into a voluntary retirement plan known as a thrift savings plan. Cindy Scinto's physical condition overshadows other factors in this appeal. Cindy suffers from relentless health problems requiring constant monitoring and resulting in high medical expenses. The ailments include a heart transplant attended to coronary artery disease, a pancreas transplant caused by type 1 diabetes, Gra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of a formal motion. John testified that he had agreed to a legal separation so that Cindy could maintain health insurance. During the trial, the parties announced an agreement that John would share fifty percent of the community portion of his retirement pension with Cindy. Cindy also asked the court to divide John's income until he retires. During the trial testimony of Cindy Scinto, the superior court asked counsel about the parties' respective wishes for disposing of the family residence. Cindy's counsel requested possession of the residence and a nominal payment of $4,534 to John for his share in the home"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fa7a4d7-41a7-4d10-9709-b76319eba24d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11265398-11265398","title":"CourtListener opinion 11265398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The","extracted_reporter_citation":"815 P.2d 843","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f Mathews, 70 Wn. App. 116 (1993), but misstates its holding. In In re Marriage of Mathews, this court found error when the trial court awarded indefinite maintenance equivalent to one-half of Donald Mathews' income to his divorcing spouse when a qualified domestic relations order already operated to transfer one-half of all retirement or disability income. This court found error when the combination of the two orders would have deprived Mathews of his half of the retirement income. Mathews does not stand for the proposition that a court is forbidden from awarding maintenance that extends beyond retirement. John Scinto also rel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11266024 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wallace. Extracted reporter citation: 45 P.3d 1131. Docket: 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11266024 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt ordered that Michael \"pay a total of $1,750 to [Janice] from the C[al]PERS pension as and for spousal maintenance,\" eliminating the payment to Janice for her community portion of the pension. On March 2, 2022, a court commissioner entered a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directing monthly payments of $1,750 to Janice from Michael's CalPERS pension. Janice appeals. 7 No. 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial court abused its discretion in its property distribution and calculation of maintenance. She also asks for attorney fees and costs on appeal. Property Distribution Janice argues the court ab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 1 For clarity, we refer to Janice Hodge and Michael Hodge by first name. We intend no disrespect. This opinion bases the citations and pin cites on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. No. 82557-7-I/2 In 2003, Michael retired. He received a pension under the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). On retirement, Michael elected to receive a lower monthly payment in exchange for a 100 percent survivor benefit under his pension. He named Janice the sole beneficiary of the survivor benefit so she would receive his monthly pension payments after his death. Michael also collected Soc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed that Michael \"pay a total of $1,750 to [Janice] from the C[al]PERS pension as and for spousal maintenance,\" eliminating the payment to Janice for her community portion of the pension. On March 2, 2022, a court commissioner entered a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directing monthly payments of $1,750 to Janice from Michael's CalPERS pension. Janice appeals. 7 No. 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial court abused its discretion in its property distribution and calculation of maintenance. She also asks for attorney fees and costs on appeal. Property Distribution Janice argues the court ab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4781c1cb-8083-43ba-af77-930db7005c95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11266024-11266024","title":"CourtListener opinion 11266024","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"45 P.3d 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: on of the cited material. No. 82557-7-I/2 In 2003, Michael retired. He received a pension under the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). On retirement, Michael elected to receive a lower monthly payment in exchange for a 100 percent survivor benefit under his pension. He named Janice the sole beneficiary of the survivor benefit so she would receive his monthly pension payments after his death. Michael also collected Social Security benefits and a monthly disability benefit from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for injuries he sustained while serving in the United States Marine"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11268039 Docket: 30629 Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11268039 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f from judgment, Yalonda's attorney electronically submitted a signed decree to the court, which the court accepted on July 15, 2025. Motion for Relief from Judgment, p. 1. This is consistent with the court's July 17, 2025 order, which ordered the filing of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). The July 17 order indicated that a final judgment and decree had been filed in the case and ordered David to file a QDRO with the court and forward it to the plan administrator within 90 days. Although the final judgment and decree had been filed, it was not time-stamped until July 18. The suggestion of death filed on August 22, 2025, indicated th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Agreement; instead, she asked that the decree itself be vacated. In the motion, Yalonda mentioned the parties' home, which was titled in both their names, as well as money contained in two accounts: Yalonda's Ohio Deferred Compensation Account and her 457 Retirement Plan with Voya Financial. The amounts in these accounts as of June 30, 2025, were to be transferred to David, and the proceeds of the sale of the home were to be divided equally between the parties. {¶ 10} The main focus of Yalonda's motion was the house. She argued that if David died intestate, the house proceeds would have to be administered in the probat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 3, citing Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 at paragraph two of the syllabus, and Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d at 245. {¶ 27} Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether a trial court has authority under R.C. 3105.171(I) to modify a property division (pension benefits) where the properties did not agree to the modification. Walsh v. Walsh, 2019-Ohio-3723, ¶ 1. In Walsh, the parties had been married for 19 years but had separated after only six years. Their consent judgment in the divorce case provided that the wife would receive a share of the husband's military pension based on a marriage term of six years."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb89362-f0d3-4a4d-9002-3d88f358321d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268039-11268039","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268039","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30629 Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: gment, Yalonda's attorney electronically submitted a signed decree to the court, which the court accepted on July 15, 2025. Motion for Relief from Judgment, p. 1. This is consistent with the court's July 17, 2025 order, which ordered the filing of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). The July 17 order indicated that a final judgment and decree had been filed in the case and ordered David to file a QDRO with the court and forward it to the plan administrator within 90 days. Although the final judgment and decree had been filed, it was not time-stamped until July 18. The suggestion of death filed on August 22, 2025, indicated th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fdc703d-35e6-417f-b88d-9b8302a454a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268520","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11268520 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11268520 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fdc703d-35e6-417f-b88d-9b8302a454a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268520","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fdc703d-35e6-417f-b88d-9b8302a454a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11268520-11268520","title":"CourtListener opinion 11268520","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: III. Conclusion Wright seeks to vindicate important interests: due process, protection of familial association, and freedom from unlawful seizure. This Court appreciates her commitment to reuniting with her children. However, to appeal child custody and domestic relations orders issued by the Franklin County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and Roanoke City Circuit Court, Wright must litigate in those courts. Further, insofar as Wright states a claim for retaliation unconnected with the child custody dispute, she fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11269662 Extracted reporter citation: 581 U.S. 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11269662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of either party's right to make any claim for social security benefits based on the other party's social security benefits. Other portions of the Agreement reference Husband's \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: complaint for divorce on February 15, 2022. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Included in the Property Agreement is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: operty Settlement Agreement on September 7, 2021. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on February 15, 2022. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Included in the Property Agreement is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acd49cfe-79ef-4870-a25d-3982c8ee675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11269662-11269662","title":"CourtListener opinion 11269662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"581 U.S. 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vision of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of either party's right to make any claim for social security benefits based on the other party's social security benefits. Other portions of the Agreement reference Husband's \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3538f19f-b062-4f3e-b1d8-d2b19df3ac12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009","title":"CourtListener opinion 11271009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 P.3d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11271009 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Robertson. Extracted reporter citation: 54 P.3d 708. Docket: 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11271009 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3538f19f-b062-4f3e-b1d8-d2b19df3ac12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009","title":"CourtListener opinion 11271009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 P.3d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3538f19f-b062-4f3e-b1d8-d2b19df3ac12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009","title":"CourtListener opinion 11271009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 P.3d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rder in this dissolution proceeding awarded Darla Carpenter1 one-half of Talesha Sams' Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) account from the date of the parties' marriage through the date of their separation and ordered the account to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In July 2021, Sams filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. On the day she filed bankruptcy, Sams' attorney issued a notice of stay in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362. In a March 2022 settlement agreement in the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to enter a QDRO to effectuate the ordered division of Sams' PERS accoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3538f19f-b062-4f3e-b1d8-d2b19df3ac12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009","title":"CourtListener opinion 11271009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 P.3d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is dissolution proceeding awarded Darla Carpenter1 one-half of Talesha Sams' Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) account from the date of the parties' marriage through the date of their separation and ordered the account to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In July 2021, Sams filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. On the day she filed bankruptcy, Sams' attorney issued a notice of stay in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362. In a March 2022 settlement agreement in the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to enter a QDRO to effectuate the ordered division of Sams' PERS accoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3538f19f-b062-4f3e-b1d8-d2b19df3ac12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11271009-11271009","title":"CourtListener opinion 11271009","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 P.3d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: count. 1 Although the case caption reads \"Darla Carpenter-Sams,\" we refer to her as \"Darla Carpenter,\" her preferred name, as shown on the title page of her brief. 2 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams On February 20, 2024, a court commissioner entered a property division order, concluding that it effectuated the terms of the final divorce order. More than three months later, on May 28, 2024, the court commissioner signed the findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the order. On June 7, 2024, Sams filed a motion for revision of the commissioner's order and the later entered findings and conclusions. On Ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1120f55e-26a6-41f2-a6e9-e05393ac02d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276663","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11276663 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 225 Cal.App.3d 469. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11276663 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1120f55e-26a6-41f2-a6e9-e05393ac02d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276663","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1120f55e-26a6-41f2-a6e9-e05393ac02d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276663","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: A172255 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 Concurrently, we issue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1120f55e-26a6-41f2-a6e9-e05393ac02d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276663","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: YNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A172255 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1120f55e-26a6-41f2-a6e9-e05393ac02d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276663-11276663","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276663","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 Concurrently, we issue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11276733 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 225 Cal.App.3d 469. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11276733 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: FORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marriage of 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 We use fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: IRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11a5f89b-2331-4f75-85b0-4f442d3ceac5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11276733-11276733","title":"CourtListener opinion 11276733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"225 Cal.App.3d 469","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tations or refers to material that is not part of the appellate record. Teletha's abbreviated argument is in substance: \"[The judgment says] only retirement contributions, earnings, or accumulations from the date of marriage through the date of separation are community property and subject to division,\" but the TSP QDRO allocates to David more than his half of the community property part of her Thrift Savings Plan benefits. (Underscoring omitted.) Critically, the judgment is not part of the appellate record, precluding review of whether the TSP QDRO is contradictory. (See Cosenza v. Kramer 3 (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102 [c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11277968 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11277968 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appellee. Jay F. Crook Attorney at Law, LLC and Jay F. Crook, for appellant. EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.: Defendant-appellant Sabrina E. Mickel (\"Mickel\") appeals the trial court's denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment challenging a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Upon review, we affirm the trial court's decision. I. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff-appellee Steven D'Wayne Marrs (\"Marrs\") filed a complaint for divorce in September 2019. The divorce was finalized in November 2022, when the trial court issued a final-divorce-decree judgment entry (\"divorce entry\"). Mickel appealed the divorce en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nded QDRO was signed by one party's attorney and notated \"Seen but not approved\" on the signature line for the other party's attorney); Eichholz v. Eichholz, 2009-Ohio-1421 (9th Dist.) (affirming the trial court's adoption of a QDRO applying to a husband's retirement account that was drafted and submitted by his wife); Cuyahoga C.P., Domestic Relations Loc.R. 28(F) (providing that the trial court may assign the responsibility of preparing a QDRO to either party at its discretion and counsel for the alternate payee may prepare a QDRO if the participant is in default). Consequently, Mickel has not established that she is en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ourt for her failure to comply with the divorce entry as it pertained to the payment of spousal support to Marrs, Marrs' interest in Mickel's business, and Marrs' attorney fees; the listing and selling of the marital residence; and the division of Mickel's 401(K). After Mickel failed to comply with the contempt entry, Marrs filed motions to impose a jail sentence and show cause. In December 2024, the parties entered into an agreement to remedy Mickel's contempt. The agreement was memorialized in an agreed judgment entry (\"agreed entry\"), which was executed by Mickel, Marrs, and their attorneys. Relevant to thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa5a7d1-1f89-4aa4-8f14-146a30ed4f18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11277968-11277968","title":"CourtListener opinion 11277968","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: husband's retirement account that was drafted and submitted by his wife); Cuyahoga C.P., Domestic Relations Loc.R. 28(F) (providing that the trial court may assign the responsibility of preparing a QDRO to either party at its discretion and counsel for the alternate payee may prepare a QDRO if the participant is in default). Consequently, Mickel has not established that she is entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief or an evidentiary hearing on her motion; the trial court merely adopted the QDRO based on the express terms of the agreed entry. Mickel's appeal — in effect — bootstraps challenges to the agreed entry, where condit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11281157 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Landry. Extracted reporter citation: 699 P.2d 214. Docket: 60354-3-II inequitable because the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11281157 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the parties' community property because (1) it was within the trial court's discretion to h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): h. Parrish argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ing the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the parties' community property because (1) it was within the trial court's discretion to h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ab07264-a220-4c8f-a71f-b5101663aeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281157-11281157","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281157","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"60354-3-II inequitable because the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 P.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: appeals the final divorce order and the order denying his motion for reconsideration entered following his divorce from Jessica Prince, formerly known as Jessica Parrish. Parrish argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11281854 Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Docket: 65-2 at 10. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11281854 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ertification for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as: [A]ll persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plans, at any time during the Class Period [March 18, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order]. 5 Doc. no. 65-2 at 10. The court addresses the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) requirements below. A. Rule 23(a) Threshold Requirements 1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rustees, the Administrative Investment Oversight Committee of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, and \"John Does 1-30\" (\"defendants\") asserting injuries arising from defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to effectively manage and monitor plaintiffs' retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss this action (doc. no. 22) which this court denied. The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated settlement. Before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion (doc. no. 65) seeking preliminary approv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: cock Clinic, and \"John Does 1-30\" (\"defendants\") asserting injuries arising from defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to effectively manage and monitor plaintiffs' retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss this action (doc. no. 22) which this court denied. The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated settlement. Before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion (doc. no. 65) seeking preliminary approval of the parties' proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement (doc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10124209-df4e-4c09-9d42-16fba3509669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11281854-11281854","title":"CourtListener opinion 11281854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"65-2 at 10. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"521 U.S. 591","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Here, plaintiffs seek preliminary class certification for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as: [A]ll persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plans, at any time during the Class Period [March 18, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order]. 5 Doc. no. 65-2 at 10. The court addresses the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) requirements below. A. Rule 23(a) Threshold Requirements 1. Numer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11284137 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11284137 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: benefits are paid to the employee spouse, there is no need for the court to assign a value to the benefits.12 The employer is instructed to pay the non-employee spouse's portion directly to him or her, usually pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).13 6 Id. 7 See Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 See Sims, 358 So.2d 919. 11 Id. 12 Blanchard, 731 So.2d 175. 13 Id. 3 The problem in the instant case arises because Teacher's Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) does not accept QDROs and, instead of cooperating with Mrs. Sullivan in executing an acceptable divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e trial court's judgment, we affirm. ***** Mr. Charles Sullivan and Mrs. Paige Sullivan married in 1964, divorced in 1988, and partitioned their community property in 1990. The partition judgment, inter alia, ordered that each party had an interest in \"any retirement plan, and in any annuity or lump sum payment paid to either party\" in accordance with the formula established in Sims v. Sims.1 Both parties worked for the Calcasieu Parish School Board (CPSB), Mrs. Sullivan as a teacher and Mr. Sullivan as a principal. In June 1995, Mr. Sullivan retired and entered into DROP. \"The DROP program is an optional method of retiring"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ourt \"value the assets as of the time of trial on the merits, determine the liabilities, and adjudicate the claims of the parties.\" (Emphasis added.) However, \"[u]se of the ‘fixed percentage' method [such as the Sims formula] does not require valuation of the pension.\"4 Our supreme court in Sims v. Sims5 discussed the unique situation pension plans which have not matured at the date of dissolution create, stating: [T]he community interest in the retirement plan has no immediate redeemable cash value. Until the employee is separated from the service, dies, or becomes disabled, no value can be fixed upon his right t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1093cf8b-a388-49e3-86c0-8386202d905c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11284137-11284137","title":"CourtListener opinion 11284137","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: portion at the same time benefits are paid to the employee spouse, there is no need for the court to assign a value to the benefits.12 The employer is instructed to pay the non-employee spouse's portion directly to him or her, usually pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).13 6 Id. 7 See Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 See Sims, 358 So.2d 919. 11 Id. 12 Blanchard, 731 So.2d 175. 13 Id. 3 The problem in the instant case arises because Teacher's Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) does not accept QDROs and, instead of cooperating with Mrs. Sullivan in executing an acceptable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11285622 Extracted reporter citation: 778 So.2d 1105. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11285622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he trial court signed a judgment awarding Mrs. Thomas $11,075.85, representing the trial court's calculation of Mrs. Thomas's share of her former husband's disability benefits from August 1, 2002, through May 1, 2006. The trial court further ordered that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issue to Boise Cascade, directing that company to pay Mrs. Thomas the sum of $246.13 per month as her share of community disability benefits beginning June 1, 2006. Mr. Thomas appealed that judgment, asserting three assignments of error. OPINION In reversing the trial court judgment, we need only consider the issue raised in Mr. Thomas's second assi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: EL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas PETERS, J. The defendant, L. W. Thomas, appeals the trial court judgment awarding his former wife, Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas, the sum of $11,075.85 as her community share of an employment disability retirement plan and awarding her future benefits at the rate of $246.13 per month. For the following reasons, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Mr. Thomas. DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD L. W. Thomas and Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas were married on November 23, 1971. On December 1, 1971, Mr. Thomas became employed with Boise Cascade and continued his employment wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: me Court, in Robinson v. Robinson, 99-3097, p. 17 (La. 1/17/01), 778 So.2d 1105, 1121, stated: Louisiana jurisprudence is clear; general divestiture language does not necessarily divest the non-employee spouse of his or her right in the employee spouse's pension. When the agreement does not expressly address the employee spouse's pension, the issue of whether the agreement divests the non-employee spouse of any community property rights in the pension depends upon the intent of the parties. Thus, as pointed out in Jennings v. Turner, 01-631, p. 1 (La. 11/28/01), 803 So.2d 963, 964, \"[t]he issue of whether a pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74423583-102d-438c-965d-8d92b412f03e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11285622-11285622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11285622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 So.2d 1105","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ourt signed a judgment awarding Mrs. Thomas $11,075.85, representing the trial court's calculation of Mrs. Thomas's share of her former husband's disability benefits from August 1, 2002, through May 1, 2006. The trial court further ordered that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issue to Boise Cascade, directing that company to pay Mrs. Thomas the sum of $246.13 per month as her share of community disability benefits beginning June 1, 2006. Mr. Thomas appealed that judgment, asserting three assignments of error. OPINION In reversing the trial court judgment, we need only consider the issue raised in Mr. Thomas's second assi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11286599 Extracted reporter citation: 809 So.2d 1017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11286599 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Therefore, this is correctly reflected in the judgment. However, the first sentence of the paragraph pertaining to cash on hand, bank account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cope of the oral stipulation. The first paragraph Mrs. Reon challenges reads: Appearers agree that each party will keep all cash on hand in each other's possession, including, but not limited to, their personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: challenges reads: Appearers agree that each party will keep all cash on hand in each other's possession, including, but not limited to, their personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualifie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1b473cf-810b-4094-a2cc-077c7615e3b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11286599-11286599","title":"CourtListener opinion 11286599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"809 So.2d 1017","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Therefore, this is correctly reflected in the judgment. However, the first sentence of the paragraph pertaining to cash on hand, bank account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11288770 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Todd. Extracted reporter citation: 500 U.S. 305. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11288770 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt for Sevier County, Tennessee (\"Chancery Court\") on April 1, 2024 (\"Divorce Decree\"), with the incorporated Marital Dissolution Agreement (\"MDA\") [Doc. 48-1]; (B) the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered by the Chancery Court on January 3, 2025 (\"QDRO\") [Doc. 48-21]; (C) a letter to Debtor's state-court attorney, Jimmy G. Carter, Jr., from the Administrative Committee of UPS 401(k) Savings Plan dated January 15, 2025, recognizing the QDRO (the \"QDRO Approval Letter\") [Doc. 48-3]; (D) Debtor's Second Amended Schedule C filed on December 2, 2025, docketed at entry number 47 [Doc. 48-4]; and (E) the Ob"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Debtor's Claim of Exemption Under T.C.A. § 26-2-111(1)(D) (\"Objection\") filed by Ann Mostoller, Chapter 7 Trustee (\"Trustee\") on October 8, 2025 [Doc. 38], through which the Trustee objects to Debtor's claimed exemption of a portion of her former spouse's retirement benefits in the amount of $11,000.00 (\"Retirement Benefit\"). The record before the Court consists of six stipulations of fact submitted by the parties on December 4, 2025 [Doc. 48], together with five stipulated exhibits: (A) the Final Decree of Divorce between Debtor and Tyler James Williams entered in the Chancery Court for Sevier County, Tennessee (\"Chance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: emarked, \"the QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that [the alternate payee] has no interest in the plan [ ] until she obtains a QDRO, they merely prevent her from enforcing that interest until the QDRO is obtained.\" Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 421 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 1997)). Id. at *5 (alterations in original). Having found that the debtor was a fully vested owner in the 401(k) award, the Myatt court then found that the funds were not property of the estate under § 541(c)(2) and Patterson: In interpretin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ed891b6-ee16-4aba-b23c-2ef0a46e2abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11288770-11288770","title":"CourtListener opinion 11288770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"500 U.S. 305","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 7. The amounts awarded hereunder shall be paid to the Alternate Payee in a lump sum payment, as soon as practicable following the date this Order is determined by the Plan to be a qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of Section 206(d) of ERISA). . . . . 9. It is intended that this Order will qualify as a qualified domestic relations order under Section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, and shall be administered and interpreted in conformity with such Act. This Order does not require the Plan to provide any type or form of benefit or any option not otherwise provided to the Participant under the Plan. T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"754a3776-2ea9-4ef9-9a2d-d563b7b45a81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11289295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11289295 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11289295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"754a3776-2ea9-4ef9-9a2d-d563b7b45a81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11289295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"754a3776-2ea9-4ef9-9a2d-d563b7b45a81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11289295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e arts. 1759 and 2003. Subsequent to the motion for appeal, Crittenden filed a motion for leave to amend her petition. Her supplemental and amending petition sought enforcement of the contract for separation of property and partition agreement, qualified domestic relations order, legal interest, and attorney's fees. Daigle filed an opposition to that motion and, alternatively, he filed a \"Motion to Quash Absolutely Null Order and Declinatory Exception Pleading Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.\" Crittenden filed a reply. In February 2011, she filed a motion for entry of order, and in March 2011, she filed a motion for transfe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"754a3776-2ea9-4ef9-9a2d-d563b7b45a81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11289295-11289295","title":"CourtListener opinion 11289295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ollowing reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daigle and Crittenden were married in April 1994. In October 2002, they jointly filed a Petition for Approval of Matrimonial Regime of Separation of Property and entered into a Partition of Community Property Agreement. In March 2005, Crittenden filed a petition for divorce from Daigle. On April 15, 2005, Daigle filed a Petition to Annul Partition of Community Property agreement on account of lesion. Crittenden responded by filing peremptory exceptions of res judicata, no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription. Following a June 17, 2005 heari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4748b4-04a6-4bc5-94d3-132b67d5d941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"85 So.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11290088 Extracted reporter citation: 85 So.3d 168. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11290088 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4748b4-04a6-4bc5-94d3-132b67d5d941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"85 So.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4748b4-04a6-4bc5-94d3-132b67d5d941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"85 So.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eking to make the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, rendered in the 16th JDC executory. On February 15, 2011, Ms. Daigle filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition for Enforcement of Contract or Separation of Property and Partition Agreement, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Legal Interest, and Attorney's Fees in the 15th JDC. After Mr. Daigle answered this petition, Ms. Daigle filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to the terms of the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, she was entitled to \"a money judgment in her favor and against Kenneth Paul Daigle . . . in the amount of one million f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4748b4-04a6-4bc5-94d3-132b67d5d941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"85 So.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ake the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, rendered in the 16th JDC executory. On February 15, 2011, Ms. Daigle filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition for Enforcement of Contract or Separation of Property and Partition Agreement, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Legal Interest, and Attorney's Fees in the 15th JDC. After Mr. Daigle answered this petition, Ms. Daigle filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to the terms of the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, she was entitled to \"a money judgment in her favor and against Kenneth Paul Daigle . . . in the amount of one million f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4748b4-04a6-4bc5-94d3-132b67d5d941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290088-11290088","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"85 So.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 02, they jointly filed a Petition for Approval of Matrimonial Regime of Separation of Property in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court (16th JDC), Iberia Parish. Concomitant with their petition, on October 22, 2002, the parties entered into a Partition of Community Property Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the \"Partition Judgment\", and a judgment approving the Contract for Separation of Property Regime was signed by the trial court. The parties later instituted divorce proceedings in Iberia Parish and were granted a divorce on November 30, 2005. On June 1, 2005, Ms. Daigle initiated separate proceedings in the Fiftee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f93bf21-ba2a-43d5-85e8-7946c52d2ebb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290222","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 So.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11290222 Extracted reporter citation: 617 So.2d 880. Docket: in the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11290222 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f93bf21-ba2a-43d5-85e8-7946c52d2ebb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290222","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 So.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f93bf21-ba2a-43d5-85e8-7946c52d2ebb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290222","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 So.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ution was made to him for one half of Dione's IRA. The record reveals that the trial court issued an order in May of 2011 requiring Richard to provide immediate access to Dione of one half of the value of his IRA. On June 24, 2011, the trial judge signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) spelling out the New York Life account numbers involved and the obligations of the payor and payee. Richard asserts that he wrote to New York Life on August 5, 2011, instructing them to transfer $49,850.81, purportedly one half of the value of his IRA at the time, from his account to Dione's account. He attaches exhibits that we cannot consider;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f93bf21-ba2a-43d5-85e8-7946c52d2ebb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290222","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 So.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: made to him for one half of Dione's IRA. The record reveals that the trial court issued an order in May of 2011 requiring Richard to provide immediate access to Dione of one half of the value of his IRA. On June 24, 2011, the trial judge signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) spelling out the New York Life account numbers involved and the obligations of the payor and payee. Richard asserts that he wrote to New York Life on August 5, 2011, instructing them to transfer $49,850.81, purportedly one half of the value of his IRA at the time, from his account to Dione's account. He attaches exhibits that we cannot consider;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f93bf21-ba2a-43d5-85e8-7946c52d2ebb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11290222-11290222","title":"CourtListener opinion 11290222","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"in the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 So.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Offices of Tony Morrow 323 East University Avenue Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 233-9515 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee - Dione W. David THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge. The defendant, Richard G. David, appeals the trial court's judgment of partition of community property. He asserts that his former spouse, the plaintiff, Dione W. David, was allocated more in assets and reimbursements than the amounts authorized by law. For the reasons that follow, we affirm as amended the judgment of the trial court. We do not consider Dione's request for attorney fees based on her assertion of a frivolous appeal as no Answer was filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11291534 Extracted reporter citation: 358 So.2d 919. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11291534 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and we believe that his interest in the retirement would have accrued from December of 2001 till August of 2008. Clearly, he's entitled to fifty percent of the accrued value of that. We're going to contact them and get the value and I'm going to prepare a QDRO that we will take care of all that. And I believe this will fully satisfy the community between these parties. The judgment, however, reads in pertinent part: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court does recognize that REGINA GILLEY, is entitled to a FORTY-NINE PERCENT (49%) share in DAVID LEE AST, JR.'s Military Retirement Benefits or equ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ement under the Sims formula as part of the community of acquets and gains.1 At a hearing on February 5, 2009, a stipulation of the parties was read into the record providing that Ms. Gilley would receive a forty-nine percent interest in Mr. Ast's military retirement benefits. A final judgment was signed on March 24, 2009, after having been approved as to form 1 In Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978), the supreme court established a formula to be used in calculating community interests in retirement plan benefits which had not yet matured at the time of the community partition. and content and signed by counsel for Mr. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r any loss she suffers created by such military retirement benefit conversion. We agree with the trial court, but note that the trial judge could not have directly applied La.R.S. 9:2801.1, which states: When federal law or the provisions of a statutory pension or retirement plan, state or federal, preempt or preclude community classification of property that would have been classified as community property under the principles of the Civil Code, the spouse 5 of the person entitled to such property shall be allocated or assigned the ownership of community property equal in value to such property prior to t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5e684f3-34f6-4287-a46d-d692ee94ebc7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291534-11291534","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: David Lee Ast, Jr. David C. Hesser Hesser & Flynn, A Limited Liability Partnership 2820 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (318) 542-4102 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Regina Beth Ann Gilley CONERY, Judge. This appeal involves issues based on a community property judgment rendered pursuant to a stipulation between former husband and wife as to allocation of the husband's military benefits. The appellant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to partition military disability benefits as part of the community. The appellant/husband further contends that the stipulation between the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11291622 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1: The Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11291622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: L), would be divided according to the formula devised in Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978). The trial court further ordered counsel \"to prepare the appropriate order for the court's approval without delay.\" However, by February 14, 2008, the issue of retirement benefits was not yet entirely resolved, and the trial court once again ordered the division of the retirement interests of both parties according to the Sims formula, except for the 1 James E. Stewart, Sr. is a member of the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal. All members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal signed an order of recusal on January 20, 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: est in Mr. Stewart's LASERS account made \"payable to Dianne Denley upon retirement/termination of employment of James E. Stewart, Sr.\" Ms. Denley sought to incorporate language which would \"allow her to immediately [begin] drawing her share of his LASER'S pension; or that James Stewart, Sr. pay to mover directly 40% of his current salary and/or the amount of mover's share of the pension.\" Ms. Denley's basis for seeking the amendment apparently arises from her retirement from teaching in 2014, which triggered the payment to Mr. Stewart of twenty percent of her retirement benefits ordered in the trial court's Apr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e April 27, 2010 Judgment allowing her to immediately begin to 8 receive her allotted share of Mr. Stewart's LASERS retirement benefits or a 9 proportionate share of his salary. 10 Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801(B) states: 11 B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment 12 which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between 13 former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic 14 relations order has been granted \"qualified\" status from the plan 15 administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the 16 appropriate federal or state authority as being in complian"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0318e53e-78fc-40b4-b6a6-2d30b48d152f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11291622-11291622","title":"CourtListener opinion 11291622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: order of recusal on January 20, 2015. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order on January 27, 2015 assigning the case to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. For the purposes of this opinion we will refer to him as Mr. Stewart. entitlement of Ms. Denley to survivor benefits. The issue of LASERS's survivor benefits was then pending before the supreme court in the case of LASERS v. McWilliams, 06-2191, (La. 12/2/08), 996 So.2d 1036. At the time of the trial court's February 14, 2008 ruling, LASERS v. McWilliams was not a final ruling, as a request for rehearing had been filed in that case. The trial court ordered the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef3a0423-da17-4c29-bee8-c945e14b1318","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11292372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11292372 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11292372 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef3a0423-da17-4c29-bee8-c945e14b1318","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11292372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef3a0423-da17-4c29-bee8-c945e14b1318","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11292372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hich the property is offered at public sale. In the event of a partition by licitation, the court shall expressly state the reasons why the asset 3 cannot be allocated, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale. B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic relations order has been granted \"qualified\" status from the plan administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the appropriate federal or state authority as being in compliance with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef3a0423-da17-4c29-bee8-c945e14b1318","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11292372-11292372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11292372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 0888 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant: Kristin Sweezy Harriss Kim Segura Landry Ronnie J. Bertholot Karina Neito Womack 1518 East Highway 30 Gonzales, LA 70737 (225) 644-6100 Attorney for Defendant/Appellee: Micah Bradley Harriss PICKETT, Judge. In this community property partition proceeding, the ex-wife appeals the award and denial of certain reimbursement claims made by the trial court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, amend in part, and render judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kristin Sweezy Harriss and Micah Bradley Harriss were married on July 18, 2009. A petition for divorce was filed on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2802e9da-18ee-4ad3-b463-3a9bd9a5aa32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775","title":"CourtListener opinion 11293775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11293775 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11293775 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2802e9da-18ee-4ad3-b463-3a9bd9a5aa32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775","title":"CourtListener opinion 11293775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2802e9da-18ee-4ad3-b463-3a9bd9a5aa32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11293775-11293775","title":"CourtListener opinion 11293775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd defendant argued and he physically assaulted and threatened her. The responding officer photographed her injuries. (Ibid.) On August 6, 2020, the People filed complaint No. CR62118, \"charging defendant with corporal injury to a cohabitant and disobeying a domestic relations order.\" (Dearman, supra, C093195.) We refer to this case as the domestic violence case. The 2 We construed defendant's request to augment the record as a motion to incorporate by reference the record in case No. C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation in the dissuading/battery and firearm cases. (Ibid.)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88759cfd-07d4-4460-8ade-c606a3a4b72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294253","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11294253 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeWolfe. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11294253 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88759cfd-07d4-4460-8ade-c606a3a4b72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294253","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88759cfd-07d4-4460-8ade-c606a3a4b72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294253","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Petris for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Maxim Aperian (Maxim) appeals from an order denying his request for order (RFO)1 terminating a provision of an earlier judgment of dissolution that assigned his pension plan and account plan to his former wife Larisa Vanesyan (Larisa). We affirm. II. BACKGROUND A. Dissolution Judgment Maxim and Larisa were married on October 18, 1996, and had two children together. On March 28, 2011, Larisa petitioned for divorce. On August 23, 2013, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. Among other things, the trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88759cfd-07d4-4460-8ade-c606a3a4b72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294253","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: etirement[ ] accounts, net after taxes and penalties she would release [sic] close to 50[ percent] of the gross value. This would net her approximately $62,571.50 of which is her community interest.\" The court retained jurisdiction to make necessary qualified domestic relations orders with respect to the Plans. B. Payment from Plans In 2014 and 2015, the Plans' administrators distributed to Larisa the entire balance of the Plans, $86,516.13. C. June 18, 2024, RFO On June 18, 2024, Maxim filed a request for order \"permanently terminating the assignment of [the Plans] to Larisa . . . in the Judgment dated 8/23/2013 and return to [hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88759cfd-07d4-4460-8ade-c606a3a4b72a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294253-11294253","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294253","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: issolution, which expressly awarded Larisa the entirety of the Plans, which included both her half interest in the Plans, namely, $62,571.50, and Maxim's half interest in the Plans \"plus or minus any accruals\" as a sanction for his absconding with $100,000 in community property. Maxim additionally contends that \"once a compensatory objective has been achieved, further enforcement should cease\" and that Larisa received a \"windfall\" when she received $86,516.13 from the Plans. He provides no legal authority for his proposition. Nor does he explain how Larisa received a 4 \"windfall.\" As we explain above, the judgment of dissoluti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11294427 Extracted reporter citation: 358 So.2d 919. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11294427 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1303 (318) 561-7000 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Glenn Alexander EZELL, Judge. Magalin Blade appeals the decision of the trial court in favor of her ex- husband, Glenn Alexander, partially vacating and dissolving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dated December 13, 2002. For the following reasons, we hereby reverse the decision of the trial court, but render judgment in favor of Mr. Alexander. Mrs. Blade and Mr. Alexander were married on August 30, 1980. The couple filed for divorce on January 28, 1999. In 2001, the parties agreed to a community property settlement establishing that each woul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n favor of Mr. Alexander. Mrs. Blade and Mr. Alexander were married on August 30, 1980. The couple filed for divorce on January 28, 1999. In 2001, the parties agreed to a community property settlement establishing that each would divide their respective retirement plans according to the formula established by Sims v Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978). In 2002, the parties began a series of attempts at drafting a QDRO that would satisfy each party's retirement system. The first attempt to draft a QDRO clearly set forth that each party sought to provide the other with survivor benefits upon retirement. Mrs. Blade's retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ive from Mr. Alexander's retirement system the very right she irreversibly denied Mr. Alexander. This is facially unjust. Under Mrs. Blade's reasoning, Mr. Alexander should have to perform a unilateral obligation and suffer a lifetime reduction in monthly pension benefits, for her sole benefit, while being unable to potentially receive the reciprocal, agreed-upon survivor benefits from her retirement system. Should he not, he would be faced with the threat of suit to enforce a right that he had no chance of receiving from Mrs. Blade in return. We reject her line of thinking. Her decision has denied Mr. Alexande"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52e17812-2868-4561-9349-783f152960f0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11294427-11294427","title":"CourtListener opinion 11294427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"358 So.2d 919","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rement System of Louisiana (TRSL), rejected the survivor benefits language. The parties then submitted a draft letter with proposed language again including the agreed-upon survivor benefits provision, which was again rejected by TRSL. A third attempt at a domestic relations order was submitted, which followed TRSL's model language and did not include survivor benefits. This order was accepted and approved by TRSL on July 1, 2002. However, after the model language QDRO was accepted by TRSL and became final, the parties attempted yet again to revise that order to provide Mr. Alexander with survivor benefits. A December 13, 2002 Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dba20d-832e-42ea-80b6-a23747afacb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295349","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"One: Susana asserts that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11295349 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: One: Susana asserts that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295349 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dba20d-832e-42ea-80b6-a23747afacb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295349","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"One: Susana asserts that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dba20d-832e-42ea-80b6-a23747afacb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295349","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"One: Susana asserts that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pon which the property is offered at public sale. In the event of a partition by licitation, the court shall expressly state the reasons why the asset cannot be allocated, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale. 8 B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic relations order has been granted \"qualified\" status from the plan administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the appropriate federal or state authority as being in compliance with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dba20d-832e-42ea-80b6-a23747afacb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295349-11295349","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295349","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"One: Susana asserts that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ENDANT/APPELLEE: Ross Moody Susana F. Moody In Proper Person 2922 River Crest Road Corpus Christi, TX 78415 PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT IN PROPER PERSON: Susana F. Moody PERRET, Judge. This appeal is taken following the April 30, 2020 judgment partitioning the community property of Susana Moody (\"Susana\") and Ross Moody (\"Ross\"). The judgment also set forth reimbursement claims awarded, and an equalizing payment to be made by Ross to Susana in the amount of $49,829.70. Costs of the proceedings were assessed equally between the parties. Susana filed the appeal, but Ross has also answered the appeal. After review, we affirm in pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11295372 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Noel was even questioned by the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295372 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: irement plan) in the name of Lisa Yates, account type 31 21 [sic] 457(b). The trial court ordered that the retirement/pension accounts of Noel with Schlumberger and the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court, in an exchange with Lisa, referred to the MidAmerica plan as a defined contribution plan after discussing the differences between defined benefit and defined contribution plans. He noted regarding Noel's Vernon Parish retirement plan and Lisa's MidAmerica plan, \"The moneyappears [sic] from my testimony would be about the same.\" No"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ts were community funds that were not properly 9 allocated between the parties under community assets.9 Thus, Lisa is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the community funds existing at that time which amounts to $2,442.63. Assignment of Error Two/Retirement Accounts Lisa argues the trial court erred because it did not treat her MidAmerica retirement account like a federal Social Security account because it is a Social Security alternative. Lisa's argument on appeal relating to the MidAmerica account is reprinted in its entirety (footnote omitted): It guarantees an interest rate. This feature shows it is a defin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ther find no support for this claim. In Blanchard v. Blanchard, 96-1031 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97), 697 So.2d 275, aff'd, 97-2305 (La. 1/20/99), 731 So.2d 175, the appellate court undertook an in-depth analysis of the various means of partitioning retirement/pension plans including T.L. James & Co., v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1976) (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978) (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2469edd4-085c-4272-81a4-24c8d70302cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295372-11295372","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295372","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Noel was even questioned by the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 28/97), 697 So.2d 275, aff'd, 97-2305 (La. 1/20/99), 731 So.2d 175, the appellate court undertook an in-depth analysis of the various means of partitioning retirement/pension plans including T.L. James & Co., v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1976) (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978) (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine a percentage earned during the community), and Hare v. Hodges, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991) (Sims is not exc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 11295751 Extracted reporter citation: 375 So.3d 548. Docket: 1 and 2: It was error for the Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295751 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: account of NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated to each party in the Judgment on Remand, and this court previously affirmed the trial court's ruling relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan. Thus, the list of assigned assets allocated to LISA J. YATES (Items 1-86) in the July 13, 2022 Judgment totaling $83,432.28 is affirmed. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: imbursement claims awarded to Noel. After a thorough review, this court affirmed as amended, reversed in part, and remanded the suit for proceedings consistent with the opinion as follows: We affirm the trial court's rulings relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan; the home appraisal value of $590,000.00; the reimbursement award to Lisa for insurance premium payments in the amount of $9,224.26; the reimbursement award to Lisa for the Montana tractor in the amount of $4,500.00; the award of $77.00 in reimbursement to Noel for transcript costs; the award of $250.00 in reimbursement for the appraisal fee; the reimb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s, to-wit: 1. Barksdale Federal Credit Union credit card, account ending 0509; and 2. Bayou Federal Credit Union loan for BMW, account ending 860 [valued as a $15,431.00 at trial.] .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac2da943-e2e8-4311-93b9-643afa7bf87f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-11295751-11295751","title":"CourtListener opinion 11295751","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and 2: It was error for the Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"375 So.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated to each party in the Judgment on Remand, and this court previously affirmed the trial court's ruling relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan. Thus, the list of assigned assets allocated to LISA J. YATES (Items 1-86) in the July 13, 2022 Judgment totaling $83,432.28 is affirmed. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63bf6fae-ba94-45b2-b25b-ecf0871089d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622","title":"CourtListener opinion 1350622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"757 P.2d 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1350622 Extracted reporter citation: 757 P.2d 60. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1350622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63bf6fae-ba94-45b2-b25b-ecf0871089d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622","title":"CourtListener opinion 1350622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"757 P.2d 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63bf6fae-ba94-45b2-b25b-ecf0871089d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622","title":"CourtListener opinion 1350622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"757 P.2d 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ty of Fairbanks Fire Department. One of his employment benefits includes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \\accrued benefits\\\" of the PERS enjoy cons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63bf6fae-ba94-45b2-b25b-ecf0871089d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622","title":"CourtListener opinion 1350622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"757 P.2d 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ncludes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \\accrued benefits\\\" of the PERS enjoy constitutional protection. Article XII"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63bf6fae-ba94-45b2-b25b-ecf0871089d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1350622-1350622","title":"CourtListener opinion 1350622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"757 P.2d 60","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: banks Fire Department. One of his employment benefits includes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \\accrued benefits\\\" of the PERS enjoy cons"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02627b45-290b-4beb-8962-6a227186cad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369","title":"CourtListener opinion 1351369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"89CA1205. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"802 P.2d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1351369 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Vickie A. THOMASON. Extracted reporter citation: 802 P.2d 1189. Docket: 89CA1205. Colorado. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1351369 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02627b45-290b-4beb-8962-6a227186cad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369","title":"CourtListener opinion 1351369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"89CA1205. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"802 P.2d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02627b45-290b-4beb-8962-6a227186cad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369","title":"CourtListener opinion 1351369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"89CA1205. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"802 P.2d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 3, 1990. William J. Walsh, Lakewood, for appellee. Wedgle & Shpall, P.C., Richard J. Wedgle, Murray Wilkening, Denver, for appellant. Opinion by Judge PIERCE. Robert E. Thomason, husband, appeals the order of the trial court amending the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We reverse. A separation agreement reached by the parties was approved by the court and incorporated in a decree of dissolution on April 28, 1989. Later, the district court approved a QDRO submitted by husband. Vickie A. Thomason, wife, filed an objection to that order and argued that certain *1190 additional language should have been included in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02627b45-290b-4beb-8962-6a227186cad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1351369-1351369","title":"CourtListener opinion 1351369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"89CA1205. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"802 P.2d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: William J. Walsh, Lakewood, for appellee. Wedgle & Shpall, P.C., Richard J. Wedgle, Murray Wilkening, Denver, for appellant. Opinion by Judge PIERCE. Robert E. Thomason, husband, appeals the order of the trial court amending the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We reverse. A separation agreement reached by the parties was approved by the court and incorporated in a decree of dissolution on April 28, 1989. Later, the district court approved a QDRO submitted by husband. Vickie A. Thomason, wife, filed an objection to that order and argued that certain *1190 additional language should have been included in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c21f6c-9fba-45ce-8658-0429f47d6927","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413","title":"CourtListener opinion 1418413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA02-1722","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1418413 Docket: COA02-1722. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1418413 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c21f6c-9fba-45ce-8658-0429f47d6927","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413","title":"CourtListener opinion 1418413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA02-1722","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c21f6c-9fba-45ce-8658-0429f47d6927","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1418413-1418413","title":"CourtListener opinion 1418413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA02-1722","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: for plaintiff-appellee. Lennard D. Tucker, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant. McGEE, Judge. Plaintiff filed a complaint for absolute divorce on 12 January 2000. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on 16 March 2000, that included a claim for equitable distribution. In a reply to the counterclaim, plaintiff requested a hearing on equitable distribution. The case was heard at the 4 September 2001 session of District Court in Forsyth County. The parties advised the trial court that they had resolved by stipulation all of the issues in the case. The terms of their agreement and stipulations were read into the record by t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 145495 Extracted case name: CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA. Citation: 1056 (d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056 (d)(3). Docket: eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 145495 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 998), between and : 5. On page 13099 of the slip opinion (544 F.3d at 998), following , add a new footnote 6 (and renumber subsequent footnotes): To be sure, a party can waive an entitlement to an interest without expressing that waiver in the form of a QDRO, as the Supreme Court recently held. Although the Fifth Circuit had held a waiver by a divorcing spouse expressed in a divorce decree inef- fective under ERISA's antialienation provision because it was not expressed in a QDRO, the Court held that such a waiver of rights could be effective nonetheless. Kennedy, 129 S. Ct. at 870-74. That ability to al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  6661 6662 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANI"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: INTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  6661 6662 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA, a.k.a. JANIS  No. 06-15938 KESTER, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, CV-04-01210-KJD/ v. RJJ JUDY CARMONA, Successor Representative of Lupe N.  ORDER AM"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a6d35d7-47cd-457b-9527-d6cb99e2f77f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145495-145495","title":"CourtListener opinion 145495","citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056\n    (d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: a party can waive an entitlement to an interest without expressing that waiver in the form of a QDRO, as the Supreme Court recently held. Although the Fifth Circuit had held a waiver by a divorcing spouse expressed in a divorce decree inef- fective under ERISA's antialienation provision because it was not expressed in a QDRO, the Court held that such a waiver of rights could be effective nonetheless. Kennedy, 129 S. Ct. at 870-74. That ability to alter the entitlement to benefits outside of a QDRO is limited to a waiver of rights, however. It does not permit an assignment of interest to anyone else or an i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 145914 Extracted case name: DECEASED v. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 145914 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sion benefits to another person.\" Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. Being neither \"plainly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the regulation,\" the Treasury Department's interpretation is controlling. Auer v. Rob bins, 519 U. S. 452, 461. ERISA's QDRO provisions shed no light on the validity of a waiver by a non-QDRO. Pp. 5–11. (b) DuPont's additional reasons for saying that ERISA barred Liv's waiver are unavailing. Pp. 11–13. 2. Although Liv's waiver was not nullified by §1056's express terms, the plan administrator did its ERISA duty by paying the SIP benefits to Liv in conformity with the plan d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: her interest. 497 F. 3d, at 427. William and Liv divorced in 1994, subject to a decree that Liv \"is . . . divested of all right, title, interest, and claim in and to . . . [a]ny and all sums . . . the proceeds [from], and any other rights related to any . . . retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of [William's] past or present or future employment.\" App. to Pet. for Cert. 64–65. William did not, however, execute any documents removing Liv as the SIP beneficiary, 497 F. 3d, at 428, even though he did execute a new beneficiary-designation form naming his daughter, Kari Kennedy, as the benefici­"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: January 26, 2009 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as relevant here, obligates administrators to manage ERISA plans \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing\" them, 29 U. S. C. §1104(a)(1)(D); requires covered pension benefit plans to \"provide that benefits . . . may not be assigned or alienated,\" §1056(d)(1); and exempts from this bar qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), §1056(d)(3). The decedent, William Kennedy, par ticipated in his employer's savings and investment plan (SIP), with power both to designate a beneficiary to receive the funds upon his deat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e98992dc-1769-40a7-be8d-c0f47379cb80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-145914-145914","title":"CourtListener opinion 145914","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: LAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 07–636. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided January 26, 2009 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as relevant here, obligates administrators to manage ERISA plans \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing\" them, 29 U. S. C. §1104(a)(1)(D); requires covered pension benefit plans to \"provide that benefits . . . may not be assigned or alienated,\" §1056(d)(1); and exempts from this bar qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 147862 Extracted reporter citation: 574 F.3d 230. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 147862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: relief must establish (1) a material misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentation or concealment, and (3) extraordinary circumstances). 5 accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). Furthermore, \"[e]ach plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic violations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii). ERISA explicitly provides that a qualifying order (\"QDRO\") cannot require a plan to provide a type or fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: er her divorce proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. I. Ludwig is the former spouse of a vested participant in three benefit plans: the Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the \"Welfare Fund\"); the Carpenters Pension and Annuity Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the \"Pension Fund\"); and the Carpenters Savings Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the \"Savings Fund\"). Ludwig and her former husband were divorced in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas on November 6, 2006. Through the divorce decree, Ludwig was awarded $57,505.22 from her former husband's pension and savin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s. 2 After sending letters to the Funds, demanding immediate payment and COBRA coverage, Ludwig filed this complaint in the District Court. In her complaint, she claimed that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1984 (\" ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, 42 U.S.C. § § 1983, 1985, and 1986, and negligently inflicted emotional, psychological, physical, and financial harm to her when they denied her COBRA coverage and immediate payment.1 The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted summary judgment on all claims. Ludwig timely filed this appeal. II"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"539873c4-df91-48e2-abf4-8394ab4bf6fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-147862-147862","title":"CourtListener opinion 147862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"574 F.3d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: st establish (1) a material misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentation or concealment, and (3) extraordinary circumstances). 5 accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). Furthermore, \"[e]ach plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic violations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii). ERISA explicitly provides that a qualifying order (\"QDRO\") cannot require a plan to provide a type or fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1494072 Extracted reporter citation: 888 S.W.2d 130. Docket: 13-93-423-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1494072 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: BERTO HINOJOSA, Justice. Appellant appeals from a divorce decree signed and entered by the trial court subsequent to an oral pronouncement from the bench. By one point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in entering the divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order since the two instruments did not comport with the oral rendition of judgment. We affirm. In December 1991, Rebecca Cook filed for divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulated that 42% of Mr. Cook's federal retirement benefits constituted his separate property and the remaining 58% constituted community property. At the close of the trial, the trial court announced that it would render a decision on January 29, 1992. After a postponement, the court orally announced its ruling on February 11, 1993. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the property and debts owned by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: JOSA, Justice. Appellant appeals from a divorce decree signed and entered by the trial court subsequent to an oral pronouncement from the bench. By one point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in entering the divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order since the two instruments did not comport with the oral rendition of judgment. We affirm. In December 1991, Rebecca Cook filed for divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8927e729-3cd9-403a-af89-69d34b1a852f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1494072-1494072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1494072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-93-423-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 S.W.2d 130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: mporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulated that 42% of Mr. Cook's federal retirement benefits constituted his separate property and the remaining 58% constituted community property. At the close of the trial, the trial court announced that it would render a decision on January 29, 1992. After a postponement, the court orally announced its ruling on February 11, 1993. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the property and debts owned by the parties. Among her other awards, Mrs. Cook received 60% of the community interest in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e8353d1-2a4d-45a8-b0c9-7733713ad16b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935","title":"CourtListener opinion 1509935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"98-272-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"760 A.2d 1241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1509935 Extracted reporter citation: 760 A.2d 1241. Docket: 98-272-Appeal. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1509935 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e8353d1-2a4d-45a8-b0c9-7733713ad16b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935","title":"CourtListener opinion 1509935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"98-272-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"760 A.2d 1241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e8353d1-2a4d-45a8-b0c9-7733713ad16b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935","title":"CourtListener opinion 1509935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"98-272-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"760 A.2d 1241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ppeal are as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e8353d1-2a4d-45a8-b0c9-7733713ad16b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935","title":"CourtListener opinion 1509935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"98-272-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"760 A.2d 1241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cided at this time. The facts insofar as pertinent to this appeal are as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e8353d1-2a4d-45a8-b0c9-7733713ad16b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1509935-1509935","title":"CourtListener opinion 1509935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"98-272-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"760 A.2d 1241","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 151142 Extracted reporter citation: 546 F.3d 639. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 151142 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he documents and instruments governing the plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(I), (a)(1)(D); see also id. § 1002(8) (defining a \"beneficiary\" as \"a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan\"). An exception exists where a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) specifies a beneficiary different from what is in the plan documents. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, ERISA preempts \"any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan\" governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Through his former employer, Mr. Cline participated in two benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a Group Universal Life Insurance Plan administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and a 401(k) retirement plan. The life insurance plan initially provided for $432,000 in benefits in the event of Mr. Cline's death, $218,000 in spousal life insurance, and $10,000 of coverage for his children. The plan documents designated Ms. Valentine as \"[e]ntitled to 100% of benefits or $432,000.00.\" Ms. Valentine and Mr. Cline divorced in 2002. The divorce decree provided"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: terms of an employee benefit plan\"). An exception exists where a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) specifies a beneficiary different from what is in the plan documents. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, ERISA preempts \"any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan\" governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Ms. Valentine was entitled to 100 percent of the life insurance proceeds. Courts interpret ERISA plan document"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"516f5803-34da-41ba-9b68-d23948adf138","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151142-151142","title":"CourtListener opinion 151142","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 F.3d 639","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: usband, Raymond Cline, died. Mr. Cline previously had been married to Teresa Valentine, with whom Mr. Cline had four children. Through his former employer, Mr. Cline participated in two benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a Group Universal Life Insurance Plan administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and a 401(k) retirement plan. The life insurance plan initially provided for $432,000 in benefits in the event of Mr. Cline's death, $218,000 in spousal life insurance, and $10,000 of coverage for his children. The plan documents designated Ms. Val"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 151319 Extracted case name: MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER JOAN R. MACK. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 151319 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ialized in an order dated nunc pro tunc to a time before her death. The Nevada district court entered a domestic relations order (\"order\" or \"DRO\") over Darren Mack's objection. Among other things, the DRO decreed that a Quali- fied Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") should issue. Dar- ren Mack appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment. These appeals require us to determine whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide that a state court MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10571 issued domestic relations order is a QDRO as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: um of five hundred thousand dollars with any appreciation that is distributed to that five hundred thousand dollars.\" Dar- ren Mack appealed the order to the Nevada Supreme Court, where he argued, inter alia, that the order contravened federal law relating to retirement accounts. While his state appeal was pending, Darren Mack threat- ened suit against the trustee of the 401(k) plan—his mother, Joan Mack—should she pay the benefit to Charla Mack's Estate. Joan Mack filed a complaint in federal court seeking to interplead the $500,000 in retirement money.3 Darren Mack answered the complaint and filed a cross- claim against the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ct to dismissal no matter what it is called. MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10573 Kuckenmeister filed a motion to dismiss Joan Mack's com- plaint, and a second motion to dismiss Darren Mack's cross- claim. In both, he argued that the issue of who has the right to the pension funds mentioned in the state court order had already been resolved by the state court and that relitigation was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Joan Mack and Darren Mack argued that Joan Mack's complaint was not estopped because she had not participated in the Nevada court proceedings and was not in privity with Darren Mack. They also argued"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8971d84c-c43f-4fe4-b564-7f3f0a21a63f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-151319-151319","title":"CourtListener opinion 151319","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: These appeals require us to determine whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide that a state court MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10571 issued domestic relations order is a QDRO as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We conclude that they do and thus that the Nevada Supreme Court's QDRO determination in Mack v. Estate of Mack, 206 P.3d 98 (Nev. 2009), is entitled to full faith and credit. We reverse and remand with instructions for the dis- trict court to direct Joan Mack to deposit the contested funds with the court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba2d1ecd-0484-4dc3-acbb-3f731280a67b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858","title":"CourtListener opinion 156858","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"numbers. These consolidated appeals followed. -2- r","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 156858 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: numbers. These consolidated appeals followed. -2- r. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 156858 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba2d1ecd-0484-4dc3-acbb-3f731280a67b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858","title":"CourtListener opinion 156858","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"numbers. These consolidated appeals followed. -2- r","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba2d1ecd-0484-4dc3-acbb-3f731280a67b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-156858-156858","title":"CourtListener opinion 156858","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"numbers. These consolidated appeals followed. -2- r","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ly found that Mr. Jones lacked notice of the criminality of his conduct, and was \"unaware that it was an offense at the time it was committed.\" The record indicates Mr. Jones was the first person in the district prosecuted as a prohibited person under the domestic relations order provision. The Government argues persuasively that \"[t]here is no requirement that defendant be aware of the law or even act ‘willfully' in order to be lawfully convicted under Section 922(g).\" But Mr. Jones' conviction is not at issue here; -21- the issue is whether the Guidelines provide us with guidance on the use of a defendant's lack of notice"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 163413 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 163413 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Judge. Eleven months after the death of Barbara Patton's former husband William Todd Phipers, Ms. Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (QDRO) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The state court had entered the domestic relations order after Mr. Phiper's death, but nunc pro tunc to the date of their divorce eleven years prior to his death, because it concerned benefits from a plan not known about at the time of the divorce settlement. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: one half of the plan's value attributable to the thirteen years of the parties' marriage. Mr. Phipers died in 1999 at the age of 58. He died before retirement age and while still employed at the Denver Post. Under these circumstances, ERISA provides that retirement plan benefits can only be paid to a surviving spouse. 29 U.S.C. § 1055(a)(2). Mr. Phipers had not remarried, so at the time of his death only Ms. Patton qualified as his surviving spouse under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(a)(3)(F)(i). Ms. Patton filed with the plan administrator her QDRO covering the disclosed plan and received a lump sum payout, which appeared t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nth Circuit APR 23 2003 PUBLISH PATRICK FISHER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk TENTH CIRCUIT BARBARA A. PATTON, formerly known as Barbara A. Phipers, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 02-1040 THE DENVER POST CORPORATION; DENVER POST-DENVER GUILD PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00-K-1860) Michael J. Hofmann (Mary Hurley Stuart with him on the briefs) of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants. Daniel S. Hoffman of Hoffman Reilly Pozner & Williamson, LLP, Denver, Colorado (Mary J. K"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0f0f6e-3817-45cd-ad5f-00da846078eb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-163413-163413","title":"CourtListener opinion 163413","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Ms. Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (QDRO) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The state court had entered the domestic relations order after Mr. Phiper's death, but nunc pro tunc to the date of their divorce eleven years prior to his death, because it concerned benefits from a plan not known about at the time of the divorce settlement. The district court granted Ms. Patton's motion for summary judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b2edff4-1d75-4578-88be-17698caf3e89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731","title":"CourtListener opinion 1652731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-97-00055-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1652731 Extracted reporter citation: 968 S.W.2d 947. Docket: 06-97-00055-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1652731 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b2edff4-1d75-4578-88be-17698caf3e89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731","title":"CourtListener opinion 1652731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-97-00055-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b2edff4-1d75-4578-88be-17698caf3e89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731","title":"CourtListener opinion 1652731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-97-00055-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Ireland, Carroll, Kelley, Tyler, for appellant. Paul Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Suprem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b2edff4-1d75-4578-88be-17698caf3e89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731","title":"CourtListener opinion 1652731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-97-00055-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Supreme Court had held that a spouse had no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b2edff4-1d75-4578-88be-17698caf3e89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1652731-1652731","title":"CourtListener opinion 1652731","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-97-00055-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: arroll, Kelley, Tyler, for appellant. Paul Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Suprem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 165866 Extracted reporter citation: 381 F.3d 1015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 165866 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The complaint asserts Texaco \"breached its employment contract with the plaintiff and committed fraud\" by specifying a benefit start-date of May 1, 2003, rather than March 1, 2003; refusing to explain why the monthly benefit, after -2- reduction for a \"QDRO\" (qualified domestic relations order), would be $495.97 rather than the $552.75 Mr. Karls thought it should be; and failing to commence monthly benefit payments by the time suit was filed. R. vol. I, doc. 1, ex. A, Complaint at 10. Texaco removed the case to federal court on the ground that it was preempted by ERISA, which provided federal question juri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on involves an employee benefit plan.\" Settles v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. , 927 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991); see, e.g. , Milton v. Scrivner, Inc. , 53 F.3d 1118, 1121 n.3 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding claims \"alleging fraud with intent to deprive plaintiff of retirement benefits . . . preempted by ERISA\"); Pacificare -6- of Okla., Inc. v. Burrage , 59 F.3d 151, 155 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding claim \"alleging negligent or fraudulent administration of [benefit] plan is preempted by ERISA\"). Second, Mr. Karls argues that the exhaustion ruling was predicated on unproven facts, because the only evidence of Texaco's pension plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ability Benefit Plan , 111 F.3d 67, 68 (8 th Cir. 1997), and affirm for the reasons explained below. The complaint alleged that Mr. Karls worked for defendant Texaco, Inc. from May 1974 to December 1987 and, as part of his remuneration, he was promised a pension. In January 2003, Mr. Karls telephoned the agent administering Texaco's pension obligations to request payment of his monthly pension benefit beginning March 1, 2003. By the time Mr. Karls obtained the requisite application forms, he had been told the earliest start date he could expect was May 1. A disagreement arose subsequently over the proper amount"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233d55b7-b598-4db6-9983-d8f1d7f79535","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-165866-165866","title":"CourtListener opinion 165866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"381 F.3d 1015","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: cata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Mr. Karls also objects to the district court's threshold ruling that ERISA preempted the tort claims he asserted, which the district court accordingly refused to remand to state court where he originally filed them. We review these matters de novo , Allison v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 381 F.3d 1015, 1025 (10 th Cir. 2004); Kinkead v. S.W. Bell Cor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1673135 Extracted reporter citation: 202 S.W.3d 869. Docket: 05-04-01374-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1673135 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of Texas, First District, Houston. Opinion issued August 28, 2006 Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MAZZANT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: NT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the second corrected QDRO;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: First District, Houston. Opinion issued August 28, 2006 Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MAZZANT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d22183bf-b26b-44c6-96d5-04598f6b4fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1673135-1673135","title":"CourtListener opinion 1673135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-04-01374-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"202 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s counter petitioned for divorce on December 16, 2002. Each party submitted a sworn inventory and appraisement reflecting his or her assessment of their community and separate property. In Ms. Mullins's appraisement, she only listed her retirement benefits as community property. On August 11, 2003, Mr. Mullins and Ms. Mullins, with their counsel, participated in mediation. At mediation, they reached an agreement and signed a mediated settlement agreement which resolved all contested issues regarding their children, separate and community property, and debts. In the mediated settlement agreement, both parties transferred separate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dca47724-fdb9-41e0-9b4d-0ee1048cd83f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871","title":"CourtListener opinion 168871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 168871 Extracted reporter citation: 392 F.3d 401. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 168871 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dca47724-fdb9-41e0-9b4d-0ee1048cd83f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871","title":"CourtListener opinion 168871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dca47724-fdb9-41e0-9b4d-0ee1048cd83f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871","title":"CourtListener opinion 168871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a non-party. In any event, the district court had no authority to enter an order which would have amounted to a rewriting of history. See Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 326 F.3d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that nunc pro tunc state court order was qualified domestic relations order under ERISA because, among other reasons, it did not \"attempt to rew rite historical facts\"); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that nunc pro tunc order \"cannot -9- be used to rewrite history\") (quotation omitted); see also In re Di Franco, 339 F. Supp. 414, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (denying petitioner's motion to antedate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dca47724-fdb9-41e0-9b4d-0ee1048cd83f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871","title":"CourtListener opinion 168871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: he incurred medical expenses that were not covered by his health insurance. M r. Negley filed this lawsuit against BOW and the BOW Plan, seeking damages for his lost medical benefits under § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA ), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). He alleged that BOW , as an ERISA fiduciary, violated its duties to properly transmit health plan enrollment materials to him, to advise him of applicable deadlines for submitting his enrollment materials, and to promptly enroll him in the BOW Plan by submitting those materials to M M O within the deadlines. As a result of BOW 's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dca47724-fdb9-41e0-9b4d-0ee1048cd83f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-168871-168871","title":"CourtListener opinion 168871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"392 F.3d 401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ty. In any event, the district court had no authority to enter an order which would have amounted to a rewriting of history. See Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 326 F.3d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that nunc pro tunc state court order was qualified domestic relations order under ERISA because, among other reasons, it did not \"attempt to rew rite historical facts\"); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that nunc pro tunc order \"cannot -9- be used to rewrite history\") (quotation omitted); see also In re Di Franco, 339 F. Supp. 414, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (denying petitioner's motion to antedate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 17518 Extracted reporter citation: 463 U.S. 85. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 17518 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt to the Bell Plan. Marye learned in 1991 that Dial was receiving such benefits. When Dial refused to surrender half of the benefits to Marye, she filed a motion in state court to clarify the divorce decree. At that time, Marye asked the court to sign a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") ordering the Bell Plan to send payments directly to her. In June 1992, Dial turned 55, and his disability benefits converted to retirement benefits. -2- In February 1993, Marye and Dial compromised and settled the state action. Marye agreed to give up the previous years' benefits due her under the 1977 agreement and accepted a QDRO ordering"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s. I Gilbert \"Buddy\" Dial and Janice Marye married in 1959 and divorced in 1977. From 1959 until 1968, Dial played professional football in the National Football League. As an NFL player, Dial became eligible to receive benefits from the NFL Bert Bell Retirement Benefit Plan (the \"Bell Plan\"), which provided both retirement and disability benefits for players. Upon their divorce, Dial and Marye entered into a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into their divorce decree. The property set aside for Marye in the agreement included \"[o]ne- half of any interest Buddy Dial has in the Bert Bell NFL Player"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d Marye appealed to this Court. II The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., governs the Disability Plan. ERISA includes anti-alienation and anti-assignment clauses that apply to former spouses' rights to pension benefits. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), (d)(3)(a). The 1984 Retirement Equity Act (\"REA\") amended these provisions to allow ERISA-qualified benefits to be assigned pursuant to a QDRO, which \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payabl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4865cd21-c9aa-4da9-95d5-599beb9b99c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17518-17518","title":"CourtListener opinion 17518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"463 U.S. 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d-Party Defendant/Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - May 7, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: An ERISA-qualified employee benefits plan and a potential beneficiary challenge a district court's determination on distribution of benefits. We vacate and remand to the district court to render judgment in favor of the defendant/counter- claimant/third-party plaintiff/appellant and to consider the third-party defendant/appellant's request for attorneys' fees."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 17522 Extracted case name: SEC v. W.J. Extracted reporter citation: 67 F.3d 571. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 17522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ctly. Appellant Matassarin was married to appellee Danny Jenkins, Great Empire's chief financial officer and a participant in the Great Empire ESOP, until the couple divorced on October 15, 1991. Upon their divorce, Jenkins and Matassarin entered into a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which was approved by a Kansas state court. Menke & Associates suggested the terms of the QDRO. Under the QDRO, Jenkins agreed to assign Matassarin one-half of his interest in the Great Empire ESOP. Great Empire would hold Matassarin's interest in a segregated account, where it would accrue interest at the rate of a one-year certificate of d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: endering it clearly prudent under §404(a)(1)(C) for Great Empire not to diversify in this case. We recognize the aberrancy and difficulty of Matassarin's situation. In enacting ERISA, Congress sought to ensure that workers who have been promised certain retirement benefits actually receive those benefits. See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 720, 104 S. Ct. 2709, 2713 (1984). Although the primary purpose of an ESOP differs from that of a pension plan, ESOPs remain subject to ERISA's general protective restrictions and requirements. See Cunningham, 716 F.2d at 1463-68. From Matassarin's p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: security, should control in this case. We agree that Uselton's reasoning is persuasive, but we find that the Great Empire ESOP, considered under Daniel and Uselton together, is not subject to '33 or '34 Act protection. Daniel involved a union-established pension plan to which employers contributed. Every union member had to belong to the plan and could not have the employer contributions paid directly to him instead of to the plan. Every plan participant who served 20 continuous years with the union received identical \"defined\" pension benefits after retirement. The employers made uniform contributions for ea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98a13e5-3b7a-4bc4-aa38-d431d7ccbd71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-17522-17522","title":"CourtListener opinion 17522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"67 F.3d 571","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ______________________________________________ April 27, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Patricia Matassarin appeals the district court's grants of summary judgment dismissing her ERISA and securities claims. We affirm. I In this unusual employee benefits matter, Patricia Matassarin, who is the plaintiff/appellant and the current plaintiff's attorney of record, brought suit against the Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. (\"Great Empire\") employee stock ownership plan (\"ESOP\" or \"Plan\") and its fiduciaries and author. The Great Empire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91f296fa-4bfb-4506-b327-78b8a58b3b6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547","title":"CourtListener opinion 175547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 175547 Extracted case name: DOWNING v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 100 F.3d 141. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 175547 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91f296fa-4bfb-4506-b327-78b8a58b3b6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547","title":"CourtListener opinion 175547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91f296fa-4bfb-4506-b327-78b8a58b3b6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547","title":"CourtListener opinion 175547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the marriage ends, to continue the reduction to provide a former spouse survivor annuity for 3 DOWNING v. OPM that person . . . . On July 22, 2004, Mr. and Ms. Downing signed a separation agreement, referred to as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). J.A. 25-32. Thereafter, a divorce decree in October 2006 dissolved the marriage and specifically provided that Ms. Downing would receive \"[o]ne-half of the Thrift Savings Plan and [o]ne-half of the Civil Service Retirement benefits for his retirement from the United States Civil Service plus [one-half] of all accrued interest and increase awarded or earn"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91f296fa-4bfb-4506-b327-78b8a58b3b6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547","title":"CourtListener opinion 175547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). J.A. 25-32. Thereafter, a divorce decree in October 2006 dissolved the marriage and specifically provided that Ms. Downing would receive \"[o]ne-half of the Thrift Savings Plan and [o]ne-half of the Civil Service Retirement benefits for his retirement from the United States Civil Service plus [one-half] of all accrued interest and increase awarded or earned by TSP through the date funds are transferred to [her].\" It did not mention any survivor benefits for Ms. Downing after Mr. Downing's death. In addition to the SF 2801 form that he signed at the time of his retirement, in Decembe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91f296fa-4bfb-4506-b327-78b8a58b3b6e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-175547-175547","title":"CourtListener opinion 175547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: t Judge. Petitioner Billye D. Downing petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (\"Board\"), which affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\") denying her request for former spouse survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (\"CSRS\"), 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. Because her former husband, Randall Scott Downing, did not reelect former spouse survivor benefits for her within two years following their divorce and the divorce decree makes no mention of a survivor annuity, we affirm. BACKGROUND The Downings were married on Decembe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3735a34-862e-4121-a3dc-e43854069e67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904","title":"CourtListener opinion 1781904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"94-CA-0079","extracted_reporter_citation":"639 So.2d 1210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1781904 Extracted reporter citation: 639 So.2d 1210. Docket: 94-CA-0079. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1781904 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3735a34-862e-4121-a3dc-e43854069e67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904","title":"CourtListener opinion 1781904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"94-CA-0079","extracted_reporter_citation":"639 So.2d 1210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3735a34-862e-4121-a3dc-e43854069e67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904","title":"CourtListener opinion 1781904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"94-CA-0079","extracted_reporter_citation":"639 So.2d 1210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: parties executed a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3735a34-862e-4121-a3dc-e43854069e67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904","title":"CourtListener opinion 1781904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"94-CA-0079","extracted_reporter_citation":"639 So.2d 1210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: xecuted a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3735a34-862e-4121-a3dc-e43854069e67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1781904-1781904","title":"CourtListener opinion 1781904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"94-CA-0079","extracted_reporter_citation":"639 So.2d 1210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: er 7, 1966. The parties were domiciled in and resided in Louisiana at all times during defendant's employment with LL & E. Plaintiff filed for divorce on August 5, 1985 and a judgment of divorce was signed on October 17, 1985. The parties executed a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1788072 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.W.2d 696. Docket: S-02-1405. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1788072 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her mid-fifties and worked at various times throughout the marriage, but mostly at minimum wage employment. . . . During the marriage, she raised the coupl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . 2. Property Division. The parties have reached a division of the marital estate and have divided their property in accordance with that division agreement. The court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her mid-fifties and worked at various times throughout the marriage, but mostly at minimum wage employment. . . . During the marriage, she raised the couple's three children. There is a signi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a3258d6-d771-499f-975b-38709811a8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1788072-1788072","title":"CourtListener opinion 1788072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-02-1405. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.W.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: l entry which stated: Having considered all matters properly before it, the court now finds, concludes and rules as follows: 1. Dissolution. The marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken and the dissolution sought herein should be granted. 2. Property Division. The parties have reached a division of the marital estate and have divided their property in accordance with that division agreement. The court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1797755 Extracted reporter citation: 626 N.W.2d 582. Docket: S-06-1271. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1797755 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 43, 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998). FACTS On January 8, 1999, the marriage of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ge of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an equal 50-percent distribution of the monthly benefits."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ. WRIGHT, J. NATURE OF CASE The district court entered a decree in January 1999, dissolving the marriage of Donna Schwartz and Rodney Schwartz. In 2005, Donna alleged that Rodney's military pension was not being properly divided, and after a trial, the court entered an order effecting a division of the pension that was different than the decree. The main issue is whether the court could modify the dissolution decree. SCOPE OF REVIEW [1] Modification of a dissolution decree is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, whose order i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6cbdaf1-0c2d-47fc-bed8-2710427b9895","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1797755-1797755","title":"CourtListener opinion 1797755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-06-1271. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: W.2d 516 (1998). FACTS On January 8, 1999, the marriage of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8660772a-9f78-44c5-af91-80786826c7e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859","title":"CourtListener opinion 1955859","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"138031. Michigan","extracted_reporter_citation":"506 N.W.2d 900","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 1955859 Extracted case name: ROTH v. ROTH. Extracted reporter citation: 506 N.W.2d 900. Docket: 138031. Michigan. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1955859 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8660772a-9f78-44c5-af91-80786826c7e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859","title":"CourtListener opinion 1955859","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"138031. Michigan","extracted_reporter_citation":"506 N.W.2d 900","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8660772a-9f78-44c5-af91-80786826c7e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859","title":"CourtListener opinion 1955859","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"138031. Michigan","extracted_reporter_citation":"506 N.W.2d 900","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ses the question whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to enter the QDRO. She asserts, also, that the court erred in denying her motion for rehearing, because it was misled by defendant's attorney. We affirm. THE FACT"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8660772a-9f78-44c5-af91-80786826c7e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859","title":"CourtListener opinion 1955859","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"138031. Michigan","extracted_reporter_citation":"506 N.W.2d 900","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sopi ), for the plaintiff. Before: MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and MARILYN KELLY and CONNOR, JJ. MARILYN KELLY, J. This case addresses the question whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8660772a-9f78-44c5-af91-80786826c7e8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-1955859-1955859","title":"CourtListener opinion 1955859","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"138031. Michigan","extracted_reporter_citation":"506 N.W.2d 900","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: estion whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to enter the QDRO. She asserts, also, that the court erred in denying her motion for rehearing, because it was misled by defendant's attorney. We affirm. THE FACT"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2002495 Extracted case name: JOAN ROHRBECK v. JOHN ROHRBECK. Extracted reporter citation: 566 A.2d 767. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2002495 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered a judgment — a final, appealable judgment — on July 13, 1988. It has a broader import than that, however, and requires an examination of the nature and function of a device unknown to our courts before 1985 — the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829) — in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829) — in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employee pension and welfare benefit plans abounding in the private workplace. ERISA imposed a number of requirements on these plans relating to reporting and disclosure, vesting, funding, discontinuance, and payment of benefits. These requirements were imposed through amendments to both the Federal labor code (Title 29 U.S.C.) and the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rts before 1985 — the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829) — in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employee pension and welfare benefit plans abounding in the private workplace. ERISA imposed a number of requirements on these plans relating to reporting and disclosure, vesting, funding, discontinuance, and payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"733a7e58-d7ef-4a72-a3d8-c779244b7de4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2002495-2002495","title":"CourtListener opinion 2002495","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"566 A.2d 767","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Court for Montgomery County entered a judgment — a final, appealable judgment — on July 13, 1988. It has a broader import than that, however, and requires an examination of the nature and function of a device unknown to our courts before 1985 — the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829) — in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4481d607-e803-4fa8-820b-0a3de322a722","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660","title":"CourtListener opinion 201660","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 201660 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 201660 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4481d607-e803-4fa8-820b-0a3de322a722","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660","title":"CourtListener opinion 201660","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4481d607-e803-4fa8-820b-0a3de322a722","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-201660-201660","title":"CourtListener opinion 201660","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: olding that FEGLIA preempted -4- the state law claim, the court relied on FEGLIA's (1) language and scheme, (2) the overwhelming weight of federal court authority holding FEGLIA's provisions preempt state law, and (3) a 1998 amendment to FEGLIA allowing domestic relations orders to alter FEGLIA's benefit distribution scheme under specified circumstances. Id. at 346-48. We have carefully reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, and conclude the district court reached the correct result. We have repeatedly opined that \"when a lower court accurately takes the measure of a case and articulates a cogent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1793f7b5-bda7-4edf-a117-6c7deeaa65af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209","title":"CourtListener opinion 203209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 203209 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 203209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1793f7b5-bda7-4edf-a117-6c7deeaa65af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209","title":"CourtListener opinion 203209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1793f7b5-bda7-4edf-a117-6c7deeaa65af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209","title":"CourtListener opinion 203209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e affirm, albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\\QDROs\\\")and are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1793f7b5-bda7-4edf-a117-6c7deeaa65af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209","title":"CourtListener opinion 203209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1208 DAVID R. GEIGER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. FOLEY HOAG LLP RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] Before Lipez, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Howard, Circuit Judge. David R. Geiger, pro se. Ann Wagner, with whom Frances M. Giordano and Rubin and Rudman, LLP were on brie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1793f7b5-bda7-4edf-a117-6c7deeaa65af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-203209-203209","title":"CourtListener opinion 203209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\\QDROs\\\")and are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 208141 Extracted reporter citation: 919 A.2d 980. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 208141 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Hayward (\"Ms. Hayward\") petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (\"Board\"), which affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\") finding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") submitted by Ms. Hayward's attorney unacceptable for processing and denying Ms. Hayward a former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (\"CSRS\"). Hayward v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 109 M.S.P.R. 13 (2008) (\"Final Decision\"). Because we conclude that the QDRO, which Ms. Hayward's attorney submitted to OPM, meets the requirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion (the \"1990 Civil Service QDRO\"). While largely identical, the two orders differ in certain respects. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward \"was employed by the Department U.S. Army [sic] and is a participant in the Civilian [sic] Service Retirement Plan,\" whereas the 1990 Military QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward \"was employed by the U.S. Army Reserves and is a participant in the Military Retired 2008-3308 2 Pay Plan.\" Both orders indicate the retirement plans covered. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO states \"[t]he Plan to which this Order applies is the Civil Service Retirement System Pension Plan in which J"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: urt of Common Pleas—Family Division, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (\"Court of Common Pleas\"), dividing their marital property. Pursuant to that order, on March 26, 1990, the Court of Common Pleas signed two QDROs, one addressing Mr. Hayward's military pension (the \"1990 Military QDRO\"), and one addressing his civil service pension (the \"1990 Civil Service QDRO\"). While largely identical, the two orders differ in certain respects. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward \"was employed by the Department U.S. Army [sic] and is a participant in the Civilian [sic] Service Retirement Plan,\" whereas the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84a31360-5c45-480d-8ef0-71f97e88f2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208141-208141","title":"CourtListener opinion 208141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"919 A.2d 980","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 5 C.F.R. § 838.803, the 1990 Civil Service QDRO must expressly state that it is governed by 5 C.F.R. part 838. Id. at 19. However, the 1990 Civil Service QDRO not only failed to reference 5 C.F.R. part 838, but, according to the Board, also misreferenced \"ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and statutes governing military retired pay benefits.\" Id. at 19–20 (citations omitted). In the Board's view, these references supported the conclusion that the QDRO was ambiguous, and indicated as well that it was not completed in compliance with 5 C.F.R. § 803.803(a). Thus, the Board concluded that the 1990 Civil Service QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 208740 Extracted reporter citation: 966 F.2d 650. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 208740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2004 Decree also stipulated that appellant would receive a reduced receipt of Mr. Miller's Department of Labor pension, which was then in pay status. On June 14, 2005, the Millers consented to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the \"2005 QDRO\") that provided appellant with \"fifty percent of [Mr. Miller's] monthly annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System.\" On July 1, 2005, the Millers entered into a Consent Order of Court (\"2005 Amendment\") amending Paragraph 4(a) of the 2004 Decree. The following language was added to that paragraph: 2008-3326 -2- Barbara J. Miller shall retain s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e, but did not mention the 2005 QDRO or the 2005 Amendment. Shortly after the divorce was finalized, on October 26, 2005, Mr. Miller submitted to OPM a \"Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity.\" Mr. Miller requested that OPM begin sending him his monthly retirement benefits in an unreduced amount, effectively terminating the survivor annuity for his ex-wife. On March 3, 2007, Mr. Miller passed away. Shortly thereafter, appellant called OPM and was informed that all annuity benefits had been terminated. On May 24, 2007, appellant was granted a Petition to Clarify Order (\"2007 Clarification\") by the Court of Common Pleas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: onthly payments on his lifetime annuity in order to provide a survivor annuity for his wife. That survivor annuity would take effect after Mr. Miller's death. In addition to his CSRS annuity, Mr. Miller's service in the Air Force entitled him to a military pension as well. Shortly after Mr. Miller's retirement, the Millers separated. On October 15, 1999, Mr. Miller filed for divorce. Nearly five years later, on June 11, 2004, the Millers entered into a Decree and Order (the \"2004 Decree\") providing for an equitable distribution of their assets. Among other things, the 2004 Decree granted appellant a 28% share of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"052f402b-869d-449f-9e86-93a39c04f6b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-208740-208740","title":"CourtListener opinion 208740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 F.2d 650","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION Barbara Miller appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (\"Board\") affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\") denying her survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System. Miller v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., PH-0831-08-0085-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2008). Because the Board's decision was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. BACKGROUND Barbara Miller was married to Kenneth Miller when the latter retired from federal service on June 30, 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 20911 Extracted reporter citation: 18 F.3d 1321. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 20911 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on plans protect the interests of surviving spouses by providing benefits in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity, and ERISA § 1056, which provides that the benefits due under a covered pension plan are inalienable and unassignable, absent a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) meeting certain statutory requirements. Recognizing that Boggs was positioned \"at the intersection of ERISA pension law and state community property law,\" 117 S. Ct. at 1760, the Supreme Court held that \"[t]he surviving spouse annuity and QDRO provisions, which acknowledge and protect specific pension plan community property interests, give ri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mer spouse of any interest in or claim to: Any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights relating to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Petitioner's past, present, or future employment. Brandon, 18 F.3d at 1323. In Clift, a more obvious case of waiver, the divorce decree expressly divested the former spouse of any 18 interest in or claim under \"an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 93); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hanslip, 939 F.2d 904, 906 (10th Cir. 1991); Brown v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1195 (11th Cir. 1991); McMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1990); Fox Valley & Vicinity Constr. Workers Pension Fund, 897 F.2d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 1989). But see Emard v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 153 F.3d 949, 961 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that ERISA does not preempt California constructive trust 6 or community property law in a dispute between a surviving and former spouse over life insurance benefits), cert. denied sub nom., 119 S. Ct. 903 (1999). The more diffi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a633373-ec39-4e89-b5f3-4761618d5345","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-20911-20911","title":"CourtListener opinion 20911","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas May 19, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: In this insurance dispute, the estate of a deceased ERISA plan participant and the decedent's ex-wife are battling over the proceeds to an ERISA plan providing life insurance benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant- Appellee Audrey Allison Hayes, who is both the decedent's ex-wife and the named beneficiary under the policy. Plaintiff-Appellant Sylvia Manning, in her capaci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 210977 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 210977 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded \"50% of the marital portion\" of Mr. Hinojosa's \"retirement benefit.\" The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that \"the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits.\" The July Order also specified that the state court retained \"jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified status a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 03, Mr. and Ms. Hinojosa divorced, and the Court of Common Pleas for Sandusky County, Ohio (\"state court\") issued a divorce decree, entitled Consent Final Judgment Entry (\"July Order\"). The July Order contained a division of the marital property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded \"50% of the marital portion\" of Mr. Hinojosa's \"retirement benefit.\" The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that \"the benefits assigned to the alternate p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: n\" of Mr. Hinojosa's \"retirement benefit.\" The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that \"the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits.\" The July Order also specified that the state court retained \"jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified status and original intent of the parties\" and \"jurisdiction to enter further orders as are necessary to enforce the assignment of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c65aec30-c03f-4df6-97f8-a47ae07225a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-210977-210977","title":"CourtListener opinion 210977","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d a division of the marital property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded \"50% of the marital portion\" of Mr. Hinojosa's \"retirement benefit.\" The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that \"the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits.\" The July Order also specified that the state court retained \"jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 211063 Extracted reporter citation: 100 F.3d 141. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211063 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2040399-I-1 (M.S.P.B. July 27, 2005). We vacate and remand. BACKGROUND Gayle Snyder and Robert Ruff divorced in 1993 after over thirty years of marriage. The Wisconsin divorce court entered an order entitled \"Addendum to Marital Settlement Agreement for Qualified Domestic Relations Order-Federal (CSRS) Plan\" (\"Court Order\"). The Court Order was submitted to OPM which notified Snyder that the order was suitable for processing and would provide her with (1) an apportionment benefit payable on Ruff's retirement, and (2) a survivor annuity payable upon his death. Ruff was an employee of both federal and state governments during the entire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rgues, as she did to the Board, that Section VI of the Court Order entered at her divorce provides her with a post-retirement survivor annuity. She asserts that the Board erred in its determination that the first sentence of the section provided only a pre-retirement benefit. Rather, she argues that the intent of the parties and the clear language of the agreement evince the meaning of the order—to provide her with a lifetime benefit. She argues that the administrative judge erred in permitting Ruff's testimony regarding the intent of the agreement while excluding hers. She also argues that because OPM waited until after he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nnuity. Snyder appealed OPM's finding to the Board. While Ruff lives, the Court Order provides no payments to Snyder prior to Ruff's retirement. After his retirement, the Court Order provides Snyder with 43.11% of the actuarial equivalent value of Ruff's pension benefit which accrued during the period of their marriage. In providing for Snyder after Ruff's death, the Court Order contains the following provision: VI. DEATH OF PARTICIPANT AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS - PROVISIONS FOR TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE OF 05-3347 2 PARTICIPANT AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PARTICIPANT FOR PURPOSES OF PRE-RETIREMENT SURVIVING SPOU"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8ef5e64-f6d1-44d2-8ccf-9b603d745a76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211063-211063","title":"CourtListener opinion 211063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"100 F.3d 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: URVIVOR BENEFITS - PROVISIONS FOR TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE OF 05-3347 2 PARTICIPANT AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PARTICIPANT FOR PURPOSES OF PRE-RETIREMENT SURVIVING SPOUSE PENSION BENEFIT, (AND/OR) OTHER SURVIVOR BENEFITS. The assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee shall not be reduced, abated or terminated as a result of the death of the participant. Pursuant to Section 414(p) (5) of the Code, the former spouse of the Participant, namely Gayle S. Ruff, shall be treated as the surviving spouse of the Participant for purposes of Pre-retirement Survivor benefits accrued during the period described in Section II C a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 211879 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: SE-0831-03-0055-I-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211879 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: itions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the \"1997 QDRO\"), which was entered pursuant to the settlement agreement, provided that Ms. Warren would receive \"Fifty Percent (50%) of benefits available on the date of divorce.\" The 1997 QDRO also provided that \"50% of the marital portion of the vested and accrued benefit rights was assigned and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: an agreement that is not found there.\" Id. B Ms. Warren contends, in the alternative, that the 1997 QDRO was acceptable for processing even though the order did not refer to part 838 of Title 5, as required by 5 C.F.R. § 838.302(a)(2), because the only retirement plan in issue at the time of divorce was a CSRS plan, and because Mr. Pike and Ms. Warren drafted the decree without assistance from an attorney. Ms. Warren further argues that even if the 1997 QDRO was not acceptable for processing with respect to that procedural language, the 1999 QDRO was submitted to the court only to make the order acceptable to OPM, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d December 1, 1997. The settlement agreement provided that Ms. Warren would receive the following portion of Mr. Pike's benefits: One-half (1/2) of any entitlement which results [from] monies to be paid under the terms and conditions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the \"1997 QDRO\"), which was entered pursua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb8fc45f-8d76-4043-a8d9-7045fee932bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211879-211879","title":"CourtListener opinion 211879","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SE-0831-03-0055-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lowing portion of Mr. Pike's benefits: One-half (1/2) of any entitlement which results [from] monies to be paid under the terms and conditions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the \"1997 QDRO\"), which was entered pursuant to the settlement agreement, provided that Ms. Warren would receive \"Fifty Percent (50%) of benefits avail"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 211918 Extracted reporter citation: 145 F.3d 1480. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211918 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ffice of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831- 03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2004), denying Couvillion's petition for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was \"a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM.\" Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was \"a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM.\" Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his former spouse, Beverly Couvillion, were divorced on December 16, 1996, in Louisiana s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o.2d 919, 922 (La. 1978). Further, the federal regulations applicable provide a mechanism which allows Beverly to provide for continued distribution of her share, after her death and to her estate, through the agency responsible for administering Michael's pension. See 5 C.F.R. § 838.237(b)(3); 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012(b)(3). If such regulations provide Beverly with a convenient avenue to provide for distribution of her assets to her estate, the decision to take advantage of this feature is hers alone. Couvillion v. Couvillion, 00-143, p.8 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/26/00), 769 So. 2d 747, 752, writ denied, 2000-3185 (La. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"545fd8af-c945-4e52-82ea-59b18a742b47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-211918-211918","title":"CourtListener opinion 211918","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 F.3d 1480","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831- 03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2004), denying Couvillion's petition for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was \"a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM.\" Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64021c21-7149-49e4-8a83-3d56c81d2589","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2153953","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-89-2167. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 N.E.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2153953 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Howard E. JOHNSTON. Extracted reporter citation: 562 N.E.2d 1004. Docket: 1-89-2167. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2153953 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64021c21-7149-49e4-8a83-3d56c81d2589","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2153953","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-89-2167. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 N.E.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64021c21-7149-49e4-8a83-3d56c81d2589","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2153953","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-89-2167. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 N.E.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appeal from an order of the circuit court directing the Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64021c21-7149-49e4-8a83-3d56c81d2589","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2153953","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-89-2167. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 N.E.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the dissolution of their marriage which were consolidated by agreed order. Howard"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64021c21-7149-49e4-8a83-3d56c81d2589","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2153953-2153953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2153953","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-89-2167. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 N.E.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: om an order of the circuit court directing the Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c37a947-a74d-4178-8d7b-c7a1ec97873a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2158168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-92-0780. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"612 N.E.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2158168 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Jim E. NORFLEET. Extracted reporter citation: 612 N.E.2d 939. Docket: 4-92-0780. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2158168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c37a947-a74d-4178-8d7b-c7a1ec97873a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2158168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-92-0780. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"612 N.E.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c37a947-a74d-4178-8d7b-c7a1ec97873a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2158168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-92-0780. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"612 N.E.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as E. Griffith, Erickson, Davis, Murphy, Griffith & Walsh, Ltd., Decatur, Guardian ad Litem. Justice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c37a947-a74d-4178-8d7b-c7a1ec97873a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2158168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-92-0780. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"612 N.E.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabled by multiple sclerosis. Jim filed a petition for dissolution of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c37a947-a74d-4178-8d7b-c7a1ec97873a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2158168-2158168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2158168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-92-0780. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"612 N.E.2d 939","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fith, Erickson, Davis, Murphy, Griffith & Walsh, Ltd., Decatur, Guardian ad Litem. Justice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10a6fb37-6753-41d0-99b1-dc7cc0765771","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651","title":"CourtListener opinion 2169651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CX-00-351. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2169651 Extracted reporter citation: 611 N.W.2d 344. Docket: CX-00-351. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2169651 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10a6fb37-6753-41d0-99b1-dc7cc0765771","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651","title":"CourtListener opinion 2169651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CX-00-351. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10a6fb37-6753-41d0-99b1-dc7cc0765771","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651","title":"CourtListener opinion 2169651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CX-00-351. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Karl Matthew Ranum has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, making a false statement to the court and to the Director, failing to draft a qualified domestic relations order in a timely manner, failing to file his state and federal personal income tax returns on time for the years 1993 through 1997, practicing law during a 7-month period in which he was on restricted status for failure to satisfy his Continuing Legal Education requirements, and misusing his trust account and failing to properly maintain the required trust accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10a6fb37-6753-41d0-99b1-dc7cc0765771","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2169651-2169651","title":"CourtListener opinion 2169651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CX-00-351. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 344","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: bility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Karl Matthew Ranum has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, making a false statement to the court and to the Director, failing to draft a qualified domestic relations order in a timely manner, failing to file his state and federal personal income tax returns on time for the years 1993 through 1997, practicing law during a 7-month period in which he was on restricted status for failure to satisfy his Continuing Legal Education requirements, and misusing his trust account and failing to properly maintain the required trust accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f0dac1-847a-4fa2-ade4-f4067550ac5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673","title":"CourtListener opinion 2177673","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-01-0610. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2177673 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF Tara MENKEN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-01-0610. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2177673 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f0dac1-847a-4fa2-ade4-f4067550ac5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673","title":"CourtListener opinion 2177673","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-01-0610. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f0dac1-847a-4fa2-ade4-f4067550ac5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673","title":"CourtListener opinion 2177673","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-01-0610. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f the court: After a trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage of petitioner, Tara Menken, and respondent, George Menken, awarded maintenance and child support, and divided the marital assets. The court awarded petitioner, among other things, 60% of the retirement benefits respondent earned as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing *282 petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2000). We va"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f0dac1-847a-4fa2-ade4-f4067550ac5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2177673-2177673","title":"CourtListener opinion 2177673","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-01-0610. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing *282 petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vacate the order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 219329 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 219329 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r legal process for the debts of any Player or beneficiary, except pursuant to (a) a qualified domestic relations order under [§] 414(p) of the [Tax] Code, (b) a domestic relations order entered before January 1, 1985 that the Retirement Board treats as a qualified domestic relations order, or (c) an exception required under [§] 401(a)(13) of the [Tax] Code. The Plan also gave the Retirement Board, as the \"named fiduciary\" of the Plan as defined by ERISA, \"full and absolute discretion, authority and power to interpret, control, implement, and manage the Plan,\" including the power to \"[d]efine the terms of the Plan [and] construe the Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aw, LLC, lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Consol. Counter Claimant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Cross Claimant -lConsol. Cross Defendant - Appellant, versus THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Plaintiff - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Counter Defendant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Appellee, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllConsol. Plaintiff, BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, lllllllllllllllllll"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reached by creditors through legal process. 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turn"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2cd3186-5e0b-4120-affc-545ef834af1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219329-219329","title":"CourtListener opinion 219329","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turner and Woodson stopped paying the Ward Firm t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"818b0107-bb53-4b4f-a4c7-e8a41d49777f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782","title":"CourtListener opinion 219782","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 219782 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 219782 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"818b0107-bb53-4b4f-a4c7-e8a41d49777f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782","title":"CourtListener opinion 219782","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"818b0107-bb53-4b4f-a4c7-e8a41d49777f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782","title":"CourtListener opinion 219782","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 10-1825-cv Zangara v. Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"818b0107-bb53-4b4f-a4c7-e8a41d49777f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-219782-219782","title":"CourtListener opinion 219782","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tny, C.J.), entered March 31, 2010, 3 granting summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee International Painters and Allied Trades 4 Industry Pension Fund (the \"Fund\") as to Zangara's claims for violations of the Employee 5 Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and the Full Faith and Credit 6 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 7 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 8 On appeal, Zangara asserts that the Fund breached a fiduciary duty owed to him by, inter 9 alia, (1) failing to alter his pension payment o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2201807 Extracted case name: JOHN ROCK v. PRISCILLA M. ROCK. Extracted reporter citation: 587 A.2d 1133. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2201807 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \\a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Rock of $10,000 and suit money of $3,000, judgment for a monetary award of $53,000, payable at $10,000 a year for five years and $3,000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \\a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \\a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0857baf-8378-4e14-bf9c-221577ac5236","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2201807-2201807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2201807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"587 A.2d 1133","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: er also recommended attorney's fees for Ms. Rock of $10,000 and suit money of $3,000, judgment for a monetary award of $53,000, payable at $10,000 a year for five years and $3,000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \\a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] recei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 221208 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10-20015 This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 221208 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a community property law). 2 Case: 10-20015 Document: 00511542987 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 No. 10-20015 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). A DRO allows for the alienation of pension benefits only if the plan administrator determines that the DRO is a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (\"QDRO\"), which ERISA defines as follows: the term \"qualified domestic relations order\" means a domestic relations order-- (I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan, and (II)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 18, 2011 No. 10-20015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Glenn Brown; Betsy Brown, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Defendant - Appellant The Continental Pilots Retirement Plan Administrative Committee, Continental Airlines, Inc., Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Glenn Brown; Betsy Brown; Jay Ellis; Carol Ellis; Eddie Lindsey; Delores N. Lindsey; Christine Lockert; James Lockert; Douglas Schull; Marjorie Schull; James Vial; Brenda M. Vial; Cindy Ernst; James Ernst, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: or good faith underlying a divorce. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the appellants' claims. I. LEGAL BACKGROUND The Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (\"ERISA\") contains an anti-alienation provision which requires that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). This provision is the result of \"a considered congressional policy choice, a decision to safeguard a stream of income for pensioners []and their dependents.\" Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990). However,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4697552-b8bb-4d4e-8d15-bff0469c65d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221208-221208","title":"CourtListener opinion 221208","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-20015 This","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tes District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. DENNIS, Circuit Judge: Case: 10-20015 Document: 00511542987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 No. 10-20015 This appeal involves the question of whether ERISA allows a retirement plan administrator to seek restitution of benefits that were paid to a plan participant's ex-spouse pursuant to a domestic relations order such as a divorce decree, if the administrator subsequently determines that the domestic relations order is based on a \"sham\" divorce. We agree with the district court's holding that the subsection of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 221712 Extracted case name: ADLER v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 243 F.3d 1337. Docket: of months to place. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 221712 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ay of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan \"to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order].\" Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an \"Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity\" (\"Wisconsin Court Order\" or \"Order\") on December 23, 1997, stating that Ms. Baker was \"entitled to a pro[]rata share of [Mr. Adler'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d his former spouse, Ms. Valerie Baker, were married in May of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan \"to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order].\" Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an \"Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity\" (\"Wisconsin Court Order\" or \"Order\") on December 23, 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: __________________ ADLER v. OPM 2 Before RADER, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN * , and LINN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Stephen Adler, a retired federal employee, challenges the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\")'s calculation of the portion of his pension to which his former spouse is entitled. The Merit Systems Protection Board (\"Board\") affirmed. This court, too, affirms. I The petitioner, Mr. Adler, and his former spouse, Ms. Valerie Baker, were married in May of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0370d17-3628-4b95-b416-750e46e8013c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-221712-221712","title":"CourtListener opinion 221712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months to place","extracted_reporter_citation":"243 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan \"to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order].\" Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an \"Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity\" (\"Wisconsin Court Order\" or \"Order\") on December 23, 1997, stating that Ms. Baker was \"entitled to a pro[]rata share of [Mr. Adler'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7cbb04a-809d-4488-8b7e-86ee01d26e5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324","title":"CourtListener opinion 22324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"933 S.W.2d 522","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 22324 Extracted reporter citation: 933 S.W.2d 522. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 22324 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7cbb04a-809d-4488-8b7e-86ee01d26e5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324","title":"CourtListener opinion 22324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"933 S.W.2d 522","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7cbb04a-809d-4488-8b7e-86ee01d26e5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324","title":"CourtListener opinion 22324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"933 S.W.2d 522","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tween Andrea D. Hatteberg (hereinafter \"Ms. Hatteberg\") and James Richard Hatteberg (hereinafter \"Mr. Hatteberg\") (collectively referred to hereinafter as the \"Hattebergs\"). On October 1, 1992, a state family law court issued a divorce decree and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter the \"First Qualified Order\"). At the time of the divorce, Mr. Hatteberg worked for Red Adair Company, Inc. (hereinafter \"Red Adair\"). In the First Qualified Order, the state family law court valued and divided the Hattebergs' benefits which had accrued in Red Adair's employee profit sharing plan (hereinafter the \"Plan Assets\"). The state fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7cbb04a-809d-4488-8b7e-86ee01d26e5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324","title":"CourtListener opinion 22324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"933 S.W.2d 522","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: its and $400,000 from the settlement. In this lawsuit, Ms. Hatteberg sued Mr. Hatteberg and the other defendants (collectively 3 referred to hereinafter as \"Defendants\") for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter \"ERISA\"), violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter \"RICO\"), and negligent misrepresentation, legal malpractice and abuse of process claims under state law. Ms. Hatteberg alleged that if the distribution would have been made at the time of or shortly after the divorce the value of her portion of the Plan Assets, on March"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7cbb04a-809d-4488-8b7e-86ee01d26e5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22324-22324","title":"CourtListener opinion 22324","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"933 S.W.2d 522","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ea D. Hatteberg (hereinafter \"Ms. Hatteberg\") and James Richard Hatteberg (hereinafter \"Mr. Hatteberg\") (collectively referred to hereinafter as the \"Hattebergs\"). On October 1, 1992, a state family law court issued a divorce decree and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter the \"First Qualified Order\"). At the time of the divorce, Mr. Hatteberg worked for Red Adair Company, Inc. (hereinafter \"Red Adair\"). In the First Qualified Order, the state family law court valued and divided the Hattebergs' benefits which had accrued in Red Adair's employee profit sharing plan (hereinafter the \"Plan Assets\"). The state fa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 22374 Extracted reporter citation: 155 F.3d 507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 22374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age of 51. The parties entered into an Agreed Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in state court. The QDRO provided that Brown would receive sixty percent of Bobby Brown's UPS retirement benefits. Prior to the entry of this order, Brown's attorney forwarded to the corporate benefits department at UPS a copy of the proposed domestic relations order for approval by the Plan as a qualified order. In the transmittal letter to Ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: xas USDC No. 4-97-CV-837-Y -------------------- October 31, 2000 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:* Bobby Brown, a retired United Parcel Service (UPS) employee, is a participant in the UPS Retirement Plan (Plan), which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, (ERISA). In 1994, prior to Bobby Brown's retirement, his wife, appellant Daisy Brown (Brown) filed a divorce suit in Tarrant County. He retired the next year * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: es. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:* Bobby Brown, a retired United Parcel Service (UPS) employee, is a participant in the UPS Retirement Plan (Plan), which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, (ERISA). In 1994, prior to Bobby Brown's retirement, his wife, appellant Daisy Brown (Brown) filed a divorce suit in Tarrant County. He retired the next year * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eab89473-4148-40bb-847e-fb73e46fc042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-22374-22374","title":"CourtListener opinion 22374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"155 F.3d 507","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age of 51. The parties entered into an Agreed Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in state court. The QDRO provided that Brown would receive sixty percent of Bobby Brown's UPS retirement benefits. Prior to the entry of this order, Brown's attorney forwarded to the corporate benefits department at UPS a copy of the proposed domestic relations order for approval by the Plan as a qualified order. In the transmittal letter to Ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8038dd4-1106-43f7-a7b7-979e48a8acde","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176","title":"CourtListener opinion 2382176","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"97-615-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2382176 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 97-615-Appeal. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2382176 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8038dd4-1106-43f7-a7b7-979e48a8acde","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176","title":"CourtListener opinion 2382176","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"97-615-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8038dd4-1106-43f7-a7b7-979e48a8acde","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2382176-2382176","title":"CourtListener opinion 2382176","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"97-615-Appeal. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: RBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. John B. Harwood, Pawtucket, for plaintiff. Lauren E. Jones, Providence, for defendant. OPINION PER CURIAM. The defendant, James M. Donelan (James), appeals from a Family Court order that divided a Keogh retirement account (the Keogh account or the retirement account) equally between himself and his former wife, the plaintiff, Kathleen Kelly (Kathleen). [1] James contends that the Family Court's order improperly modified a non-merged property settlement agreement between himself and Kathleen. He further argues that the Family Court justice erred by granting Kathleen a half sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2620339 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of RICHARD M. BOGAN and LYNDA D. LEWIS. RICHARD M. BOGAN. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.4th 492. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2620339 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he parties separated. After a trial in 2006, the court issued its judgment, which included the ruling that Bogan's retirement or deferred compensation at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) while married was to be divided between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Lewis filed a notice of appeal from this judgment and, after mediating their dispute, the parties entered into an agreement stating, among other things, that Bogan would pay Lewis $35,000, Lewis agreed \"to waive any claim against the 401(k) funds held\" in Bogan's name, and Lewis would dismiss her appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Years later, Bogan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion of their children. Bogan filed a schedule of assets and debts on November 29, 2005. Under the category of retirement and pensions, Bogan listed \"PG&E retirement (Apportioned)\" and \"PSEA Credit Union ([Lewis] took funds).\" Under the heading for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) and deferred compensation, Bogan listed \"PG&E 401(k) ([Bogan's] name) (Apportioned)\" and an IRA with American Capital in Bogan's name. He also listed a 401(k) with Vodafone in Lewis's name and a Roth IRA and SEP IRA in Lewis's name. He attached a statement from the PG&E Savings Fund Plan, which showed a total fund balance of $61,374.41 for the statem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Lewis. In the 2006 judgment, the trial court reserved jurisdiction over child and spousal support and over personal property. It ruled that it did not have sufficient evidence to make a finding on support arrearages owed by either party. With regard to the pension and retirement benefits of Bogan, the 2006 judgment stated that the court had not received sufficient evidence regarding these benefits. The judgment stated: \"However, to the extent that [Bogan] acquired deferred compensation or retirement benefits through his employment with [PG&E] Company during the period of the marriage, those assets shall be equally di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58ffc91a-9d8f-49e3-a89d-331a47d31958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2620339-2620339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2620339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.4th 492","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): c Relations Order (QDRO). Lewis filed a notice of appeal from this judgment and, after mediating their dispute, the parties entered into an agreement stating, among other things, that Bogan would pay Lewis $35,000, Lewis agreed \"to waive any claim against the 401(k) funds held\" in Bogan's name, and Lewis would dismiss her appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Years later, Bogan filed the QDRO, which included the PG&E Corporation Retirement Savings Plan (RSP). Subsequently, he moved to modify the QDRO to 1 remove all references to the RSP, arguing that Lewis had waived any interest in the RSP pursuant to their settlemen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8e39bb8-86d5-4f54-a0a9-09a008a47da7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237","title":"CourtListener opinion 26237","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 26237 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 26237 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8e39bb8-86d5-4f54-a0a9-09a008a47da7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237","title":"CourtListener opinion 26237","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8e39bb8-86d5-4f54-a0a9-09a008a47da7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237","title":"CourtListener opinion 26237","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20322 Summary Calendar BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN ASSOCIATION PENSION RETIREMENT WELFARE AND VACATION FUNDS, Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** ________________ No. 01-20446 Summary Calendar ________________ BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; ET AL., Defendants, BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH, Defendant-Appellee, vers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8e39bb8-86d5-4f54-a0a9-09a008a47da7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26237-26237","title":"CourtListener opinion 26237","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: December 27, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* Billy Claude Phillips appeals the district court's dismissal of his action for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. Phillips is essentially challenging a state court's domestic relations order which awarded a portion of Phillips' pension benefits to his former wife, Beverly Parrish. The district court did not err in holding that it was without subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a collateral challenge to a state court order. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Phillips' attorney, Edward Truncelitto, appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"962040bb-d832-44a6-adb0-67486a71a78d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249","title":"CourtListener opinion 26249","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 26249 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 26249 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"962040bb-d832-44a6-adb0-67486a71a78d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249","title":"CourtListener opinion 26249","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"962040bb-d832-44a6-adb0-67486a71a78d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249","title":"CourtListener opinion 26249","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20322 Summary Calendar BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN ASSOCIATION PENSION RETIREMENT WELFARE AND VACATION FUNDS, Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** ________________ No. 01-20446 Summary Calendar ________________ BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; ET AL., Defendants, BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH, Defendant-Appellee, vers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"962040bb-d832-44a6-adb0-67486a71a78d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-26249-26249","title":"CourtListener opinion 26249","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: December 27, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* Billy Claude Phillips appeals the district court's dismissal of his action for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. Phillips is essentially challenging a state court's domestic relations order which awarded a portion of Phillips' pension benefits to his former wife, Beverly Parrish. The district court did not err in holding that it was without subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a collateral challenge to a state court order. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Phillips' attorney, Edward Truncelitto, appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2627362 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF RITCHIE. Randall James Ritchie. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 3. Court of Civil. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2627362 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Petitioner/Appellant. R.L. Buckelew, Buckelew & Buckelew, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent/Appellee. KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant Randall James Ritchie (Husband) appeals the provisions of the Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\\\"Consent Decree\\\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\\\"Consent Decree\\\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the correct formula for dividing Husband's military pension benefits and it is in accord with the parties' Consent Decree. We therefore affirm."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the correct formula for dividing Husband's military pension benefits and it is in accord with the parties' Consent Decree. We therefore affirm."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afb29a8-ec50-4cbc-b562-17f6d18c06b4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2627362-2627362","title":"CourtListener opinion 2627362","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3. Court of Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ce, Oklahoma City, OK, for Petitioner/Appellant. R.L. Buckelew, Buckelew & Buckelew, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent/Appellee. KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant Randall James Ritchie (Husband) appeals the provisions of the Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\\\"Consent Decree\\\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36209c9e-32ce-4449-aa48-718ac90d1975","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696","title":"CourtListener opinion 2631696","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-184. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2631696 Docket: 05-184. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2631696 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36209c9e-32ce-4449-aa48-718ac90d1975","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696","title":"CourtListener opinion 2631696","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-184. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36209c9e-32ce-4449-aa48-718ac90d1975","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696","title":"CourtListener opinion 2631696","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-184. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36209c9e-32ce-4449-aa48-718ac90d1975","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696","title":"CourtListener opinion 2631696","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-184. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Wyoming. VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL [*] , KITE, and BURKE, JJ. VOIGT, Chief Justice. [¶1] Richard Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"36209c9e-32ce-4449-aa48-718ac90d1975","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2631696-2631696","title":"CourtListener opinion 2631696","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-184. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: usband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2637613 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Cleone LEWIS. Extracted reporter citation: 66 P.3d 204. Docket: 01CA0013. Colorado. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2637613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ssolution of his marriage to Cleone Lewis (wife). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions. The parties had been married twenty-five years, and at the time of the final orders they had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e time of the final orders they had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b292ac2f-c3d3-4150-8bc7-1916a6f56314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2637613-2637613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2637613","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01CA0013. Colorado","extracted_reporter_citation":"66 P.3d 204","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe738d2e-eca8-4154-b80b-ab71c55a8c1a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2643043","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2643043 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2643043 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe738d2e-eca8-4154-b80b-ab71c55a8c1a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2643043","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe738d2e-eca8-4154-b80b-ab71c55a8c1a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2643043-2643043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2643043","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: adly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and the infliction of great bodily injury involving domestic violence 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), four counts of criminal threats (§ 422), four counts of disobeying a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), two counts of vandalism (§ 594, subds. (b)(1) & (b)(2)(A)), one count of premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) with the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and the infliction of great bodily injury involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), one count of aggravated mayhem (§ 205) with use of a deadly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2645677 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NATHAN and ROBIN LA MOURE. NATHAN D. LA MOURE. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2645677 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fined benefit trust plan governed exclusively by ERISA. Therefore the trial court did not have authority to determine whether the plan was a qualified ERISA plan, and funds in the pension plan could only be accessed by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the release of any funds held by the levying officer. Robin immediately filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the October 18, 2010 order granting Nathan's claim of exemption. Robin requested the trial court to 11 vacate the order, deny Nathan's claim of exemption, and order the Orange County sheriff to hold the pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: law as a sole practitioner, to pay Robin spousal and child support. Nathan fell behind on his support obligations. In April 2009, the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) issued an order to Morgan Stanley to withhold funds from Nathan's retirement accounts for the purpose of collecting child support arrears. On April 20, 2009, Nathan filed a claim of exemption and ex parte motion to quash the levy on his Morgan Stanley IRA rollover and IRA accounts. 3 In May 2009, the trial court heard and denied Nathan's claim of exemption and motion to quash/recall the IRA levy. On June 5, 2009, Nathan faxed the DCS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e & Williams, Rick D. Williams and Shelly L. Hanke for Respondent. 1 I INTRODUCTION1 This matter arises out of the dissolution of Nathan D. La Moure's marriage to Robin La Moure and consequential division of assets, including Nathan's defined benefit pension plan (pension plan). Nathan appeals two orders: (1) a July 23, 2010 order restraining disbursements from Nathan's pension plan and (2) a December 1, 2010 order granting reconsideration of the court's October 18, 2010 order, granting Nathan's claim of exemption and motion to quash orders restraining him from transferring assets from his pension plan. N"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25fc942a-6118-4bc9-9d1f-2eb6d6080eb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645677-2645677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645677","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: is pension plan. Nathan contends the trial court erred in ordering restraints on his pension plan assets and denying his claim of exemption, because ERISA2 preempts state law and prohibits alienation of pension plan assets and benefits. Nathan argues that ERISA's anti-alienation provisions prohibit payment of funds from Nathan's pension plan to Robin's attorney for attorney's fees. Nathan further argues that his pension plan is exempt from levy on the writ of execution, and the trial court erred in issuing the writ of execution upon the custodian of the assets of his pension plan. In addition, Nathan 1 On Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2645953 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Strassner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2645953 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of an additional court date.\" The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would \"like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's.\" Three day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t violated federal law; (4) the superior court erred by awarding Beverly additional compensation, outside the scope of the settlement agreement, without explanation; and (5) the superior court erred by barring the parties' children from coverage under Jason's retirement plan. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW \"We construe property settlement agreements in divorce actions in accordance with basic principles of contract law. Questions of contract interpretation are reviewed de novo.\"1 \"We review the equitable division of marital property for abuse of discretion . . . .\"2 We review factual findings supporting a property division for clear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ger, Justices. WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A husband and wife divorced in 2011. They entered into a property settlement agreement, providing that the wife would receive 55% of the marital estate and 50% of the marital share of the husband's military pension. The parties then disputed how to properly effectuate the settlement agreement — disagreeing over what portion of the husband's pension was divisible, whether the division could require indemnification for reductions in disposable retirement pay, and whether the division could include a survivor benefit plan annuity not mentioned in the settlement agreemen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c13d5f06-bdbc-441d-8d1e-6257ff2f059a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2645953-2645953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2645953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: order to prevent the need of an additional court date.\" The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would \"like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's.\" Thr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2646302 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Strassner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2646302 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of an additional court date.\" The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would \"like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's.\" Three day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t violated federal law; (4) the superior court erred by awarding Beverly additional compensation, outside the scope of the settlement agreement, without explanation; and (5) the superior court erred by barring the parties' children from coverage under Jason's retirement plan. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW \"We construe property settlement agreements in divorce actions in accordance with basic principles of contract law. Questions of contract interpretation are reviewed de novo.\"1 \"We review the equitable division of marital property for abuse of discretion . . . .\"2 We review factual findings supporting a property division for clear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ger, Justices. WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A husband and wife divorced in 2011. They entered into a property settlement agreement, providing that the wife would receive 55% of the marital estate and 50% of the marital share of the husband's military pension. The parties then disputed how to properly effectuate the settlement agreement — disagreeing over what portion of the husband's pension was divisible, whether the division could require indemnification for reductions in disposable retirement pay, and whether the division could include a survivor benefit plan annuity not mentioned in the settlement agreemen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbefe0f7-23c9-4caf-8deb-b79f5d58225e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646302-2646302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646302","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: order to prevent the need of an additional court date.\" The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would \"like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's.\" Thr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2646568 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shelstead. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 573. Docket: years of marriage. It is the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2646568 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: KI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTEENTH DIVISION V. [NO. DR-2011-4346] HONORABLE VANN SMITH, JUDGE ANNETTE COOPER APPELLEE AFFIRMED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge In this divorce case, Larry Cooper appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) dividing his railroad-retirement benefits with his wife, appellee Annette Cooper. We affirm. The parties were married in 1963 and separated in September 2011, when appellee filed for divorce. At the time of the divorce, the parties owned a marital home in Sherwood that was unencumbered and valued at $275,000. Appellee accepted appellant's offer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: They also owned vehicles, a credit-union account, and life-insurance policies. During the marriage, appellant worked at Union Pacific Railroad and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad. He retired before the divorce and began receiving Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 748 retirement benefits from both (administered by Union Pacific and distributed in one payment each month). The circuit court entered a divorce decree on May 30, 2012, granting appellee a divorce. It accepted the parties' agreement concerning the marital home; ordered the Scottrade accounts to be divided equally; ordered appellant to pay appellee $10,135.50 to equalize the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mony to appellee in the amount of $1,000 per month for twelve months. The circuit court addressed the retirement accounts as follows: 26. Retirement accounts. Both parties are retired. [Appellant] was an employee of Union Pacific Railroad and receives a pension from Union Pacific Railroad as well as one from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad. 27. The Court orders that the parties divide, pursuant to Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 573, 99 S.Ct. 802 (1979), the Defendant's Tier 2 benefits. The [Appellant] worked at Union Pacific and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad during the parties' marriage and these ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e6f73d7-8665-4602-8405-083b0a818f7b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2646568-2646568","title":"CourtListener opinion 2646568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"years of marriage. It is the","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nsidered marital property subject to division. See Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719 (1986); Meinholz v. Meinholz, 283 Ark. 509, 678 S.W.2d 348 (1984)). 4 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 748 not qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because of the inclusion of a third party, Tim Cooper. He asserted that Tim was not an \"alternate payee\" within the statute's meaning. Appellant filed a second motion for reconsideration of the QDRO on the Missouri- Kansas-Texas Railroad pension on October 12, 2012. He stated: 6. That no Court Order exist [sic] which Divides [appellant's] interest i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2647833 Extracted case name: CONNIE JUNE TIPTON STOUT v. JACKIE HAROLD STOUT. Extracted reporter citation: 854 S.W.2d 87. Docket: E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2647833 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the proper adjudication of the parties' interests in certain marital retirement assets post divorce. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court properly retained jurisdiction over the retirement assets pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Based on prior precedent, we find that the trial court did properly retain jurisdiction, and we therefore affirm the trial court's decision in this case. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded T HOMAS R. F RIERSON, II, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which C HARLES D. S USANO, J R., P."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e parties were married for twenty-four years. A hearing regarding the parties' divorce was held on February 19, 1997. The April 13, 1998 final decree of divorce recited, inter alia, that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefits and provided that Wife was immediately awarded $6,000.00 from Husband's \"Thrift retirement plan,\" plus an additional $2,400.00 from said plan as alimony in solido. The court reserved jurisdiction with regard to this asset to effectuate the transfer of funds. The decree further stated that \"in the event that any of the foregoing provisions are deemed to be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ing a certain percentage of the benefits at the time of payment should lessen the administrative burden of the court. Courts routinely retain jurisdiction to supervise payments of alimony and child support and have, in the past, successfully divided vested pension rights by awarding each spouse a share. An administrative burden should not excuse an inequitable distribution of marital property. The choice of valuation method remains within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine after consideration of all relevant factors and circumstances. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d at 831 (internal citations omitted). Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c32749f-d0e4-4732-bff9-f3c80df8b210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2647833-2647833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2647833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 S.W.2d 87","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: paid anything from the Kennametal Retirement Plan.\" On July 29, 1999, an additional order was entered1 titled \"Domestic Relations Order\" (\"DRO\"), which stated that Husband was a participant in the Kennametal Inc. Retirement Income Plan and that Wife was the alternate payee. The DRO recognized that under Tennessee law, the accrued benefits under the plan constitute marital property subject to division, and that Wife was entitled to share in those benefits. The DRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's accrued benefit as of February 28, 1997, and expressly provided that \"there are not other orders which purport to dispose of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2650774 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MAGGIE and. Extracted reporter citation: 81 Cal.App.4th 1131. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2650774 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rt found that the marital residence on Sherbourne Drive in Los Angeles was community property and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the disposition of that residence. With respect to Jesse's pension benefits, the court ordered the parties to prepare a qualified domestic relations order for Jesse's pension plans with Exxon Mobil, McDonnell Douglas, and the United States Air Force. With respect to the household furniture and furnishings, the court awarded each party all furniture and furnishings currently in his or her possession as that party's sole and separate property. The trial court reserved its jurisdiction to make any orders that mi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ital dissolution action between her and respondent Jesse E. Ward, Jr.1 On appeal, Maggie argues that the trial court erred in (1) awarding certain real property to Jesse as his sole and separate property, (2) awarding all rights and benefits in an Exxon Mobil pension plan to Jesse as his sole and separate property, and (3) failing to award certain furniture and furnishings in the marital residence to Maggie as her sole and separate property. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment without prejudice to Maggie's right to seek further relief in the trial court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: s to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent or participant\" and \"is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law.\" (29 U.S.C. § 1056, subd. (d)(3)(B)(ii).) A domestic relations order is qualified if it \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or 7 reserved its jurisdiction to divide any community assets or liabilities that were not divided in the judgment and to make any other orders that might be necessary to carry out the terms of the judgment. While Maggie contends on appeal that there was evidence showing that Jesse fr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a626804-2160-49a2-95a4-69f756297aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650774-2650774","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650774","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"81 Cal.App.4th 1131","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hat the marital residence on Sherbourne Drive in Los Angeles was community property and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the disposition of that residence. With respect to Jesse's pension benefits, the court ordered the parties to prepare a qualified domestic relations order for Jesse's pension plans with Exxon Mobil, McDonnell Douglas, and the United States Air Force. With respect to the household furniture and furnishings, the court awarded each party all furniture and furnishings currently in his or her possession as that party's sole and separate property. The trial court reserved its jurisdiction to make any orders that mi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2650980 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of SIGALIT VARDI. Extracted reporter citation: 172 Cal.App.4th 830. Docket: H038931 and a timely notice of. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2650980 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of SIGALIT VARDI H038931, H039676 AND EITAN ELIAHU. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FL116729) SIGALIT VARDI, Respondent, v. EITAN ELIAHU, Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution action, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 filed on March 12, 2010, awarded respondent Sigalit Vardi her community property interest in appellant Eitan Eliahu's retirement account. Finding that Eliahu had previously transferred the funds in the retirement account to his own accounts, on September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ndent, v. EITAN ELIAHU, Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution action, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 filed on March 12, 2010, awarded respondent Sigalit Vardi her community property interest in appellant Eitan Eliahu's retirement account. Finding that Eliahu had previously transferred the funds in the retirement account to his own accounts, on September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in the amount of $52,466. The judgment was not satisfied and on 1 A \" ‘QDRO is a subset of \"domestic relations orders\" that recognizes the right"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e reasons stated below, we will affirm both orders. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eliahu and Vardi were married in 1993 and separated in 2004. The issues in the present case arise from the disposition of the parties' community property interest in a defined contribution plan known as the Quality Kernel, LLC profit sharing plan. Eliahu was a participant in the plan (hereafter, the retirement account) and Vardi was an alternate payee. On March 12, 2010, the trial court issued a QDRO that assigned Vardi as her sole and separate property more than $41,000 from the retirement account. The QDRO also provided that Vardi's funds"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"311373c8-29e6-42e9-8652-371a8f997c20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2650980-2650980","title":"CourtListener opinion 2650980","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H038931 and a timely notice of","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: n September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in the amount of $52,466. The judgment was not satisfied and on 1 A \" ‘QDRO is a subset of \"domestic relations orders\" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to \"receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]\" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840-841.) September 20, 2012, the trial court ordered that the amount of $63,558.62 ($52,466 plus attorney's fees and interest), be pai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2651358 Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2651358 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ief), for appellant. W. Hunter Old (Christopher T. Page; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Sandra D.T. Griffin (\"Mrs. Griffin\") appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Sussex County (\"circuit court\") denying her request for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which she pursues so that a certain term of her prior divorce decree might be enforced. For the following reasons, we reverse the circuit court's order. I. BACKGROUND \"When reviewing a [circuit] court's decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he marriage as co-beneficiaries under all 401K Plans and other such plans which would be distributed upon the death of either party.\" At the time of his death, Mr. Griffin was employed by Dominion Virginia Power (\"Dominion\"). At Dominion, he qualified for retirement benefits and he elected a 401(k) plan, known as Dominion's Salaried Savings Plan (\"Salaried Savings Plan\" or \"Plan\"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). The Salaried Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan designed to encourage retirement savings. Dominion's contributions to the plan depend on the participant's contr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: an. Under the Salaried Savings Plan, the surviving spouse is the beneficiary upon the participant's death unless she has consented to another beneficiary. The Salaried Savings Plan documents also provide that \"if you are divorced, benefit payments from the Pension Plan or Savings Plan may be made to your former spouse, your child, or other dependent only in response to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" The Dominion Plan Administrator testified that the Salaried Savings Plan is not a survivor annuity and it is strictly payable to the designated beneficiary. In 2002, Mr. Griffin had named his children"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd19b2e2-46bb-4fd9-97ea-b835aa3ac4f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2651358-2651358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2651358","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: n Virginia Power (\"Dominion\"). At Dominion, he qualified for retirement benefits and he elected a 401(k) plan, known as Dominion's Salaried Savings Plan (\"Salaried Savings Plan\" or \"Plan\"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). The Salaried Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan designed to encourage retirement savings. Dominion's contributions to the plan depend on the participant's contributions and years of service. There is no actuarial analysis to determine the participant's benefits, and the participant's life expectancy is not a consideration in the Salaried Sav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2653183 Extracted case name: ROBERT L. MACY v. OUIDA J. MACY. Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Docket: M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2653183 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ovember 19, 2013 Session ROBERT L. MACY v. OUIDA J. MACY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for DeKalb County No. 2011-CV-1 Ronald Thurman, Chancellor No. M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 11, 2014 This appeal challenges the effectiveness of a QDRO which requires Wife to pay taxes on a $115,000.00 divorce settlement. The trial court held that the amount should not be reduced by taxes. We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that Wife's $115,000.00 divorce settlement was not subject to reduction for taxes, and we reverse its holding in that regard. The case is remanded for further proceedings"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Wife was required to execute quitclaim deeds conveying her interest in the above-properties to Husband. The MDA further provided: 2.5 As a division of marital property, the husband will pay to the wife the sum of $115,000.00, which shall be paid from his retirement account pursuant to paragraph 4.0 below, for any and all interest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Joh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: suant to paragraph 4.0 below, for any and all interest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Johnson Controls, with the present balance being approximately $200,000.00, after deducting the loans outstanding on said account in the amount of approximately $16,000.00. The parties agree that wife shall receive the total sum of one hundred fifteen 1 Appellee's nam"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bad694c2-903f-4286-8dac-d9652b912474","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653183-2653183","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653183","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): terest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Johnson Controls, with the present balance being approximately $200,000.00, after deducting the loans outstanding on said account in the amount of approximately $16,000.00. The parties agree that wife shall receive the total sum of one hundred fifteen 1 Appellee's name is spelled both Ouida and Quida throughout the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2653513 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2653513 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: COUNTY R. Terrence Ney, Judge Heather L. Mehigan (Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., on briefs), for appellant. Deborah N. Arthur for appellee. William G. Sylvester (husband) appeals from the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which set forth Claudette G. Sylvester's (wife) entitlement to a portion of husband's military retired pay. Husband presents two assignments of error on appeal: (1) the circuit court abused its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO because it impermissibly modified the final divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court abuse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sed its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO because it impermissibly modified the final divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO dividing husband's pension because the final divorce decree violated the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the ruling of the circuit court.1  Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 We need not address husband's second assignment of error because of our decision on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in spite of the terms of the final divorce decree, that wife is not entitled to any of his pension.2 We disagree. Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may \"[m]odify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.\" Such modification, however, must be \"consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree\" and not \"simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"672a9044-65e0-49f5-96e6-9f601eb6bd95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2653513-2653513","title":"CourtListener opinion 2653513","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: O from the circuit court to revise the formula. In a QDRO, the circuit court revised the formula.3 Husband argues that our decision in Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 514 S.E.2d 800 (1999), is controlling. In Hastie, the wife was entitled to 40% of the marital portion of the husband's military pension. The marital portion was defined as 60.1% of the total pension. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the wife a total of $102,496.40 payable in monthly installments until paid in full. The husband sought an order to conform the terms of the divorce decree to reflect that the payments would total $102,496.40. The wife so"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2654760 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 1764-12S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2654760 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: c. 4975(c). Sec. 4975(f)(6)(A) and (B)(i)(II) excepts from the exemption individual retirement accounts and annuities. See sec. 7701(a)(37). - 11 - described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2); see also sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(vii), (B)-(G) (setting forth other exceptions not applicable here). When petitioner received the distribution, he had not reached the age of 59- 1/2, and he has not alleged or shown that he comes within any of the other exceptions under section 72(t). Therefore, respondent's determination that petitioners are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: income tax of $14,165 and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) of $2,833. The issues for decision are whether petitioners: (1) failed to report as income a taxable retirement distribution from a simplified employee pension (SEP) individual retirement account (IRA); (2) are liable for the 10% additional tax under section 72(t); and (3) are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1 A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners resided in Florida when the petition"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: determined a deficiency in income tax of $14,165 and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) of $2,833. The issues for decision are whether petitioners: (1) failed to report as income a taxable retirement distribution from a simplified employee pension (SEP) individual retirement account (IRA); (2) are liable for the 10% additional tax under section 72(t); and (3) are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1 A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9747e5d0-fc31-49ee-9baf-a4a750aab7af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2654760-2654760","title":"CourtListener opinion 2654760","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1764-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 4975(d)(1) are exempt from sec. 4975(c). Sec. 4975(f)(6)(A) and (B)(i)(II) excepts from the exemption individual retirement accounts and annuities. See sec. 7701(a)(37). - 11 - described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2); see also sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(vii), (B)-(G) (setting forth other exceptions not applicable here). When petitioner received the distribution, he had not reached the age of 59- 1/2, and he has not alleged or shown that he comes within any of the other exceptions under section 72(t). Therefore,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee695340-ef7e-4f30-8040-6e9e80e46bcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2657109 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2657109 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee695340-ef7e-4f30-8040-6e9e80e46bcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee695340-ef7e-4f30-8040-6e9e80e46bcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657109-2657109","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657109","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: order that [appellant] have no contact with Linda Kalish nor come within 100 yards of Linda Kalish; . . . and number five, the 5 defendant intentionally violated the court order.\" [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] \"You must not find [appellant] guilty of disobeying [a] domestic relations order in . . . count 4–unless all of you agree that . . . the People have proved specifically that the [appellant] committed the offense on September 28, 2011. [¶] Evidence that the [appellant] may have committed the alleged offense on another day is not sufficient for you to find him guilty of the offense charged.\" Evidence was presented that Kalish obtained a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2657174 Extracted reporter citation: 383 S.W.3d 833. Docket: of other accounts were raised in circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2657174 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ground Brook and Dena married in June 1993 and divorced in March 2005. The March 2005 divorce decree divided their property, including individual retirement accounts. Approximately three years after the divorce decree was entered, orders purporting to be Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) were entered. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-18-101 (Repl. 2009) defines a QDRO as being a state domestic-relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to receive benefits of a participant's 1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 192 retirement plan. Section 9-18-102(a) (Repl. 2009) empowers circuit courts to enter qualified dome"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ION [NO.DR-2004-720] V. HONORABLE RICHARD A. DENA A. ROGERS MOORE, JR., JUDGE APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Brook Rogers appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's decision ordering him to pay Dena Rogers certain marital retirement benefits. Brook argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that he owed Dena $40,709.85 in retirement benefits. We reverse the court's order that awarded Dena $40,709.85 and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Factual and Procedural Background Brook and Dena married in June 1993 and divorced in March 2005. The March 2005 divorce decree divided the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: count, that was titled solely in her name during the marriage, but it is not at issue in this appeal. Brook held three retirement accounts solely in his name during the marriage. Specifically, when the divorce decree was entered he held an AT&T (later SBC) Pension Plan; an AT&T/SBC 401(k) Savings Plan; and a Janus Fund IRA. Dena has not challenged how the circuit court distributed Brook's AT&T/SBC Pension Plan, so it is not at issue. Only the AT&T/SBC 401(k) plan and the Janus Fund IRA are important to this appeal. And the two retirement accounts created after the divorce, the 2006 USAA Roth IRA and the 2008 USA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7291f70b-0311-4984-a39a-6232aed85c61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2657174-2657174","title":"CourtListener opinion 2657174","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of other accounts were raised in circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"383 S.W.3d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ely in her name during the marriage, but it is not at issue in this appeal. Brook held three retirement accounts solely in his name during the marriage. Specifically, when the divorce decree was entered he held an AT&T (later SBC) Pension Plan; an AT&T/SBC 401(k) Savings Plan; and a Janus Fund IRA. Dena has not challenged how the circuit court distributed Brook's AT&T/SBC Pension Plan, so it is not at issue. Only the AT&T/SBC 401(k) plan and the Janus Fund IRA are important to this appeal. And the two retirement accounts created after the divorce, the 2006 USAA Roth IRA and the 2008 USAA IRA, are at issue. Dur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2659058 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2659058 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: equiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on June 24, 2000 and separated on August 19, 2011.1 Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: urt erred by (1) incorrectly valuing his interest in the law firm; (2) failing to consider the tax consequences of requiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rial court erred by (1) incorrectly valuing his interest in the law firm; (2) failing to consider the tax consequences of requiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cec33326-4c0d-4660-8f1e-f0302e9f6432","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2659058-2659058","title":"CourtListener opinion 2659058","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: im to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on June 24, 2000 and separated on August 19, 2011.1 Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2660521 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2660521 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Plaintiff Cheryl Rivera was married to Luis Rivera, a District of Columbia police officer, until their divorce in February 2009. Mr. Rivera died later that year, and Ms. Rivera sought survivor benefits from the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan (hereinafter \"Plan\"). When the District of Columbia Retirement Board (hereinafter \"DCRB\") and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of D.C. Pensions (hereinafter \"ODCP\") denied her request, Ms. Rivera filed the instant suit against DCRB; the Plan; the United States Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew; 1 and Mr. Rivera's two surviving children, A.R. and G"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cts Not in Dispute (Dkt. #44-4) (hereinafter \"Pl.'s SOF\") ¶¶ 1–2. Until his death in December 2009, Mr. Rivera served as a District of Columbia Police Officer and was an active participant in the D.C. Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan, which provides pension, survivor, and other benefits to its members and their beneficiaries. See id. ¶¶ 4–6; Treasury's Statement of Facts (Dkt. #49) (hereinafter \"Treasury's SOF\") ¶ 8; see also generally D.C. Code §§ 5-701 et seq. Pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended, D.C. Code §§ 1-801 et seq., the Plan is funded by both the District of Columbia and the f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n her appeal. See A.R. 65–88. In January 2011, DCRB and Treasury jointly issued a decision denying Ms. Rivera appeal. 3 See A.R. 2–10. The decision reasoned that \"[n]either the Plan nor the Spouse Equity Act expressly define[s] a posthumous nunc pro tunc [domestic relations order] as a qualifying court order.\" Id. at 6 (citing D.C. Code §§ 1-529.02(c), 1-529.03(b)–(c)). \"Absent a qualifying order entered into prior to an active Plan participant's death,\" DCRB and ODCP went on to explain, a survivor's legal entitlement to Plan benefits \"are fixed at the time of the participant's death by operation of law.\" Id. Accordingly, becaus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fd8a9de-15ae-4e16-bf6a-6ef5fa8fe6db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660521-2660521","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660521","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: of the United States Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Cheryl Rivera was married to Luis Rivera, a District of Columbia police officer, until their divorce in February 2009. Mr. Rivera died later that year, and Ms. Rivera sought survivor benefits from the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan (hereinafter \"Plan\"). When the District of Columbia Retirement Board (hereinafter \"DCRB\") and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of D.C. Pensions (hereinafter \"ODCP\") denied her request, Ms. Rivera filed the instant suit against DCRB; the Plan; the United States Secretary of the T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2660681 Extracted case name: PBGC v. LTV. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2660681 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: February 2003, John sought to substitute Gaylyn as the survivor beneficiary under his retirement plan through a Domestic Relations Order (\"DRO\") entered by a Texas state court. 1 The Plan initially approved the DRO as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and substituted Gaylyn as an alternate survivor beneficiary. In 2005, however, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\") became statutory trustee of the Plan, and in the course of reviewing John's benefit payments, PBGC determined that Gaylyn's purported substitution as an alternate beneficiary was invalid and that Melissa remained the survivo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion No. 09-cv-1907 (RLW) v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION and MELISSA VANDERKAM, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon his retirement from the Huffy Corporation in August 1994, John VanderKam began receiving benefits under the Huffy Corporation Retirement Plan in the form of a Joint and 100% Survivor Annuity. At that time, John was married to Melissa VanderKam, whom he had designated as the survivor beneficiary under the Plan. John and Melissa divorced eight years later, and, after remarrying Gaylyn Dieringer in February 2003, John sought to substitute Gaylyn as the survivor beneficiary under his retirement p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN VANDERKAM and GAYLYN DIERINGER, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 09-cv-1907 (RLW) v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION and MELISSA VANDERKAM, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon his retirement from the Huffy Corporation in August 1994, John VanderKam began receiving benefits under the Huffy Corporation Retirement Plan in the form of a Joint and 100% Survivor Annuity. At that time, John was married to Melissa VanderKam, whom he had desig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31ccc243-3949-4b78-acec-28c6a2790174","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2660681-2660681","title":"CourtListener opinion 2660681","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: name, the Court refers to John, Melissa, and Gaylyn by their first names. 1 Through this action, John and Gaylyn (collectively, \"Plaintiffs\") seek reversal of PBGC's determination under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), arguing that PBGC's decision was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (\"APA\"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court upholds PBGC's decision, the Court should impose a constructive trust under Texas common law on any survivor benefits received by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2670200 Extracted case name: NATALE v. NATALE. Extracted reporter citation: 167 P.3d 705. Docket: 1 CA-CV 12-0765. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2670200 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e to file the enforcement action. (3.) His position that he was somehow entitled to a 20% \"contractor's fee.\" 7 NATALE v. NATALE Decision of the Court (4.) His endorsement of Wife's name on the insurance proceeds check. (5.) His failure to sign the \"QDRO\" in a timely manner, which required Wife to file the enforcement action. (6.) His failure to facilitate the division of the parties' personal property, which remains in his exclusive control, which required Wife to file the enforcement action. (7.) His failure to pay Wife her one-half interest in the parties' 2010 federal and state income tax refunds"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on for contempt and enforcement and all unresolved issues. After the hearing on July 9, the court issued a signed minute entry on August 9, 2012, rejecting Husband's claim that he was entitled to a 20 percent contractor's fee, dividing Husband's non-qualified retirement accounts and ordering Husband to pay Wife $22,000 before he retires, requiring Wife to reimburse Husband if Husband's employer does not pay him a commensurate amount upon retirement, and finding that the current fair market value of the house equals $760,000. The minute entry also required Husband to timely purchase the house. If he failed to do so, Wife would be e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: h subject matter jurisdiction over all domestic relations matters. In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298, 301, ¶ 7, 9 P.3d 329, 332 (App. 2000). And the Arizona Supreme Court made clear in Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 41, 638 P.2d 705, 708 (1981), that pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property if the rights were acquired during marriage and are subject to equitable division upon divorce. See also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 180-81, 713 P.2d 1234, 1238-39 (1986) (holding non-mature pension benefits are community property subject to equitable division if acquired during the marriag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706099a2-7f42-4c0b-b470-c20becece451","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670200-2670200","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 12-0765","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 P.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ed or non-vested, are community property if the rights were acquired during marriage and are subject to equitable division upon divorce. See also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 180-81, 713 P.2d 1234, 1238-39 (1986) (holding non-mature pension benefits are community property subject to equitable division if acquired during the marriage); Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451-52, ¶ 16, 167 P.3d at 708- 5 NATALE v. NATALE Decision of the Court 09 (confirming that Johnson should be applied to non-mature pensions); see generally Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85, 90, ¶21, 290 P.3d 1208, 1213 (App. 2012) (explaining that the trial court h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2670581 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2670581 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the other part[y's] pension benefit earned to date\" and \"[a]ppropriately worded qualified domestic relations orders will be drafted and submitted to the court for signature.\" Pursuant to the settlement, Jean's former counsel, Terry C. Aglietti,1 prepared two qualified domestic relations orders, which were subscribed as approved by Daryl's counsel and entered by the court on May 7, 1992. 1 Jean claims that Daryl's counsel drafted his order. However, the superior court specifically found that Aglietti prepared both orders, and this finding is supported by the fact that both orders were drafted on Aglietti's pleading paper. -2- 6895 The order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l Management, and distribution began when he retired in 2007. In 2007 Jean received a letter from the Office of Personnel Management informing her that the Office had \"received and approved your application for a portion of your former spouse's civil service retirement benefit.\" The letter referenced federal regulations2 and went on to state that [b]y court order we are to pay you a lump sum of $22,459.81 from your former spouse's retirement benefit. By regulation we must pay this lump sum to you in installments equal to one half of your former spouse's gross monthly annuity until the lump sum is paid in full. Currently you"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , Anchorage, for Appellant. David W. Baranow, Law Offices of David Baranow, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices. FABE, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Jean Kollander seeks to modify the pension division in a qualified domestic relations order originally entered by the superior court in 1992. The federal pension administrator paid Jean's share of her former spouse's pension in accelerated lump sum payments from 2007 to 2008. In 2012 Jean brought a claim that she was instead entitled to lifetime monthly payments. After an evidentiary hearing, the su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e081a62-6884-4975-9cd0-0a15cb2b21cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2670581-2670581","title":"CourtListener opinion 2670581","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: wever, the superior court specifically found that Aglietti prepared both orders, and this finding is supported by the fact that both orders were drafted on Aglietti's pleading paper. -2- 6895 The order entered on behalf of Jean reads, in relevant part: 6. Alternate payee, Jean R. Kollander, is entitled to one- half the sum of participant, Daryl E. Kollander's benefits as of April 1, 1990, payable from the contributions to the plan made by or on behalf of participant. 7. Distribution and calculation of these benefits pursuant to this order shall be pursuant to guidelines accepted by the Internal Revenue Service. (Empha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2671358 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Pennington. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2671358 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: account with a non-spouse;2 and (2) the court erred by determining 1 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2006). ERISA governs payment of federal pension plans to individuals other than the pension holder (termed \"alternate payees\"), id. § 1056(d)(3)(A), and defines a \"qualified domestic relations order\" as \"creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan,\" id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). An \"alternate payee\" is defined as \"any spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property was domestic partnership property and divided that property equally between the parties. The superior court also considered three employment benefits that Boulds accumulated during his relationship with Nielsen: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension. The court determined that the insurance death benefit and the 401(k) retirement account were not domestic partnership assets and belonged to Boulds alone. But the court determined that the union pension was a domestic partnership asset and was subject to division. Because Boulds appealed to this court, the superior court has not yet is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ip property and divided that property equally between the parties. The superior court also considered three employment benefits that Boulds accumulated during his relationship with Nielsen: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension. The court determined that the insurance death benefit and the 401(k) retirement account were not domestic partnership assets and belonged to Boulds alone. But the court determined that the union pension was a domestic partnership asset and was subject to division. Because Boulds appealed to this court, the superior court has not yet issued an order dividin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc1358ab-171e-469e-b2d3-7ca3cd99b2ba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671358-2671358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671358","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: re together. During the relationship Boulds accumulated three employment benefits through his employer: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act -2- 6901 (ERISA).1 When Boulds was first hired by his employer, he listed Nielsen as his intended pre-retirement death beneficiary for the union pension, even though the form specified that only a spouse, child, parent, or sibling could be listed. Boulds's employer told him approximately one year later that he could not list a cohabitant. He then listed his children as the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbffe7-8afe-4782-a77d-18909a68c3cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671783","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2671783 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of RONALD T. and. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2671783 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbffe7-8afe-4782-a77d-18909a68c3cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671783","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbffe7-8afe-4782-a77d-18909a68c3cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671783","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Ronald anticipated his only income would be his social security retirement income of $2,113 a month and an estimated $1,933.84 in retirement from his employer. Ronald estimated that Margaret was earning approximately $2,873 per month based on her share of his retirement benefits and her disability payments. Ronald also filed an income and expense declaration with the court. In the declaration, Ronald indicated that his rental property income was approximately -$47. The rental property generated around $3,270 per month and had expenses including a $2,433.50 mortgage, a $327 property management fee, an average of $337.38 in gardeni"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbffe7-8afe-4782-a77d-18909a68c3cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671783","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ement benefits without penalties. Ronald explained that there was an exception that allowed for penalty-free early withdrawals from the retirement fund if an individual was disabled. Ronald also said Margaret did not list the income she would receive from his pension fund pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously filed with the court. Ronald estimated Margaret would receive approximately $1,300 a month from the pension fund. He also asserted his bank records showed that Margaret was receiving $1,544 a month in disability payments, not $1,459 or $1,449. Ronald noted that Margaret had previously stated"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbffe7-8afe-4782-a77d-18909a68c3cd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2671783-2671783","title":"CourtListener opinion 2671783","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d explained that there was an exception that allowed for penalty-free early withdrawals from the retirement fund if an individual was disabled. Ronald also said Margaret did not list the income she would receive from his pension fund pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously filed with the court. Ronald estimated Margaret would receive approximately $1,300 a month from the pension fund. He also asserted his bank records showed that Margaret was receiving $1,544 a month in disability payments, not $1,459 or $1,449. Ronald noted that Margaret had previously stated in court that she wished to remain the beneficiary of h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ca1958f-43f0-49dd-a236-4f965fc3b25b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672048","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"356 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2672048 Extracted case name: DAVID R. SEATON ET AL. v. WISE PROPERTIES-TN. Extracted reporter citation: 356 S.W.3d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672048 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ca1958f-43f0-49dd-a236-4f965fc3b25b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672048","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"356 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ca1958f-43f0-49dd-a236-4f965fc3b25b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672048-2672048","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672048","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"356 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: settled. See Seaton, 2012 WL 2362144 at *8; see, e.g., Clark v. Clark, No. M2006-00934-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1462226 at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2007) -10- (reversing the trial court's post-remand award of attorney's fees for services rendered in drafting a QDRO and stating: \"By entertaining Wife's subsequent request for attorney's fees, the lower court acted in excess of its authority when it considered a previously settled issue outside its scope on remand.\"); Melton v. Melton, No. M2003-01420-COA-R10-CV, 2004 WL 63437 at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2004) (reversing the trial court's decision to conduct an eviden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2672634 Docket: was entry of the final order and COAPs. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672634 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ty to . . . [m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order [QDRO] or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. \"The QDRO may not ‘modify a final divorce decree simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circumstances' but must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'\" Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780-81, 514 S.E.2d 800,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section, including the authority to . . . [m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order [QDRO] or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. \"The QDRO may not ‘modify a final divorce decree simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circumstances' but must be ‘consistent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e for Unpaid Marital Debts,\" including attorney's fees; (4) approving a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) regarding husband's interest in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) with language that enables wife to obtain a portion of his pension even if she remarries, which was not part of the final decree of divorce; and (5) failing to modify child support.1 Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0a33e5a-76fa-4f7e-9763-130536f8f6fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672634-2672634","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"was entry of the final order and COAPs","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: or her interest in husband's TSP. It also stated: By order entered on February 19, 2010 this Court awarded husband seven thousand one hundred thirty dollars ($7,130.00) for attorney's fees to be credited against wife's receipt of money and/or property in equitable distribution. This sum may be credited to her by an exchange in equitable distribution or paid by wife directly to husband. (Emphasis added.) Neither party appealed the final decree of divorce. At the hearing in July 2013, the trial court followed the final decree of divorce and ordered that wife would receive $53,827.50 for her share in the TSP. In his opening br"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2672717 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672717 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enerally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for \"qualified domestic relations orders,\" which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates \"an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under the plan,\" id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and explicitly provides that a person designated as an \"alternate payee under [such an order] shall be considered . . . a beneficiary under the plan,\" id. § 1056(d)(3)(J). For purposes of our di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to provide retirement benefits for himself and the employees of his surgical practice. He served as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act administrator and trustee for both pension plans. In 2005 he and his fifth wife were divorced. The state court on March 9, 2005 entered two distribution orders allocating to his ex-wife $64,216 of his share in one of the pension plans and $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: human breast,\" 1 can often be seen in matters of matrimony. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case, what sprang from his fifth matrimonial go round was a substantial property award to his fifth ex-wife. From that award sprang his embezzlement of the pension funds of his employees and his sentence of imprisonment for that crime. From that sentence sprang this appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to prov"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b767d7b5-b442-482c-81a0-a2ee8dbed1a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2672717-2672717","title":"CourtListener opinion 2672717","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: sed solely on intended loss. A credit against loss based on money returned is not available for intended loss alone. It is not available because the guidelines commentary concerning the credit requires that the money be returned 3 Although benefits under ERISA plans generally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for \"qualified domestic relations orders,\" which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates \"an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2673169 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of LESLIE and TERRY MOORE. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.3d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673169 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e case for the trial 16 court to award Leslie one-half of $18,897.60, or $9,448.80, in the form of a reduction in the amount of her equalization payment. C. PERS The parties stipulated to, and the trial court entered, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided the amount of Terry's PERS retirement account, at the time of separation, in half. The order was entered on May 20, 2010. Leslie asserts she began receiving her PERS benefits in September 2010. Leslie complains she was entitled to her share of PERS benefits beginning on March 26, 2009, and she contends the loss of this income was waste. We dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pears to have been Terry's other employment benefits and, in particular, his accrued vacation and sick leave. The trial court never addressed the motion. 2. Analysis The medical trust is a community asset. Similar to a nonvested pension and other contingent retirement benefits, the medical trust's benefits are property rights because they represent a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. In this case, they are a contractual right derived from Terry's employment agreement with the City and earned by him while married to Leslie. They are thus a divisible community property asset. \"Generally, all property acquired b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: l trust. The other \"asset\" appears to have been Terry's other employment benefits and, in particular, his accrued vacation and sick leave. The trial court never addressed the motion. 2. Analysis The medical trust is a community asset. Similar to a nonvested pension and other contingent retirement benefits, the medical trust's benefits are property rights because they represent a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. In this case, they are a contractual right derived from Terry's employment agreement with the City and earned by him while married to Leslie. They are thus a divisible community property ass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2832b32-975d-4b3a-9d98-f458d285caa3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673169-2673169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): As president of the CPOA, Terry designed the entire trust. The medical trust is a unique asset designed to pay retirees a monthly benefit up to a certain maximum for covered medical expenses and health insurance premiums. To an extent, the medical trust is a defined contribution plan. The City pays a set amount each month into the trust for each public safety employee. That amount was $200 per month until January 1, 2009, when it was raised to $250 per month, and until January 1, 2010, when it was raised to $300 per month. The City began contributing to Terry's account in 2004, and as of April 2009, Terry had earned $7,324.24 in th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a669a342-ecbf-418f-852d-d27d8b9a1f92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673609","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 104","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2673609 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Busch. Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 104. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673609 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a669a342-ecbf-418f-852d-d27d8b9a1f92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673609","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 104","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a669a342-ecbf-418f-852d-d27d8b9a1f92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673609","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 104","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sting the information contained in the attached judgment was true and accurate. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement on December 29, 2011. Husband retired on January 1, 2012. He filed a motion for the trial court to approve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning Wife 40.14 percent of Husband's pension, After a hearing on April 17, 2012, the trial court issued an order, apparently based on an oral motion made at the hearing, ordering that the difference between what Wife received in maintenance and what she would be receiving from Ameren in pension payments be calculated, possibly resulting in a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a669a342-ecbf-418f-852d-d27d8b9a1f92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673609","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 104","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 011, which provided that Husband would pay maintenance to Wife in the amount of $1,850 per month. Husband's maintenance obligation would terminate upon Husband's retirement from Ameren, at which point Husband and Wife would each receive a portion of Husband's pension benefits. The settlement agreement further provided that \"[a]ny pension payments made to [Wife] within 30 days of the iast maintenance payment shall be reimbursed to [Husband] on a prorated basis of $61.67 per day.\" The settlement agreement stated that the parties \"warrant[ed] that they ha[d] each disclosed to the other the full extent of their respective"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a669a342-ecbf-418f-852d-d27d8b9a1f92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673609-2673609","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673609","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 104","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: information contained in the attached judgment was true and accurate. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement on December 29, 2011. Husband retired on January 1, 2012. He filed a motion for the trial court to approve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning Wife 40.14 percent of Husband's pension, After a hearing on April 17, 2012, the trial court issued an order, apparently based on an oral motion made at the hearing, ordering that the difference between what Wife received in maintenance and what she would be receiving from Ameren in pension payments be calculated, possibly resulting in a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2673958 Extracted case name: DAVID RAY HOGGATT v. LORI ANN HOGGATT. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673958 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: al estate the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of \"$9,500\" rather than the correct amount of \"$12,500.\" We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order on Wife's motion to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: gross marital estate the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of \"$9,500\" rather than the correct amount of \"$12,500.\" We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of \"$9,500\" rather than the correct amount of \"$12,500.\" We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order on Wife's motion to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec9f7dcd-2c39-463d-a0c7-ccf4eecd5b61","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2673958-2673958","title":"CourtListener opinion 2673958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"60 S.W.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Lori Ann Hoggatt (\"Wife\"). The trial court classified, valued, and distributed the parties' property. On this appeal, Husband challenges aspects of the division of marital property. We modify the amount that the trial court ordered Wife to pay Husband in the property division. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed as Modified; Case Remanded C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which T HOMAS R. F RIERSON, II, J., joined. D. M ICHAEL S WINEY, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion. Philip M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0fe1e0-3138-4593-b00d-8d04d09ec367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602","title":"CourtListener opinion 2674602","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2674602 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Link. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-13-1306 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2674602 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0fe1e0-3138-4593-b00d-8d04d09ec367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602","title":"CourtListener opinion 2674602","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0fe1e0-3138-4593-b00d-8d04d09ec367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602","title":"CourtListener opinion 2674602","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's \"reservation\" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the \"reserved-jurisdiction\" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0fe1e0-3138-4593-b00d-8d04d09ec367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2674602-2674602","title":"CourtListener opinion 2674602","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax - 22 - 2014 IL App (2d) 131306 consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2675302 Extracted reporter citation: 909 P.2d 314. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2675302 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s (\"Mr. Ross\") 2 survivor benefits to Jeannette Pritchow, Mr. Ross's former wife. Ms. Pritchow appeals the denial of her request for attorneys' fees. We affirm. (1) The district court did not err in interpreting the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") agreed to between Ms. Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of the QDRO states that Ms. Pritchow is entitled to \"the entirety of the survivor benefit payable pursuant to the Plan.\" Although Washington law applies a community property presumption that when a spouse continues to accumulate p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: BLICATION MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE No. 13-35071 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION - PACIFIC D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR MARITIME ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-counter-defendant, JEANETTE PRITCHOW, Defendant-cross-defendant - Appellee, v. KIM E ROSS, Defendant-cross-claimant - Appellant. JEANETTE PRITCHOW, No. 13-35074 Defendant-cross-defendant - D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR Appellant, And * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: vor pension benefits by the Joint Trustees of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union – Pacific Maritime Association Pension Plan (\"the Plan\"). Kim E. Ross (\"Mrs. Ross\") appeals the district court's award of 100% of Joseph E. Ross's (\"Mr. Ross\") 2 survivor benefits to Jeannette Pritchow, Mr. Ross's former wife. Ms. Pritchow appeals the denial of her request for attorneys' fees. We affirm. (1) The district court did not err in interpreting the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") agreed to between Ms. Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d7b5118-9d5e-4db1-9eea-d2b622fdf3e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2675302-2675302","title":"CourtListener opinion 2675302","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 P.2d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of the QDRO states that Ms. Pritchow is entitled to \"the entirety of the survivor benefit payable pursuant to the Plan.\" Although Washington law applies a community property presumption that when a spouse continues to accumulate pension benefits following divorce, the former spouse should receive only those benefits that accrued during the marriage, state law does not mandate that approach. See Chavez v. Chavez (In re Chavez), 909 P.2d 314, 316 (Wash. App. 1996). Here, the QDRO is entirely clear with respect to survivor b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2676785 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 400 S.W.3d 869. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2676785 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ERTS, ) FILED: June 3, 2014 Respondent. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County The Honorable Twila K. Rigby, Judge Before Division Two: Victor C. Howard, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ. Deborah Roberts (\"Wife\") appeals from a qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which specifies that, under a 1990 dissolution decree, Wife is entitled to one-half of only the marital portion of her ex-husband‟s retirement benefits. We affirm. Factual Background Wife was married to Michael Roberts (\"Husband\") on April 9, 1976. Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 9, 254 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). \"Conversely, if property was 4 acquired outside the marriage, it is presumed to be nonmarital.\" Petties v. Petties, 129 S.W.3d 901, 908 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). The distinction between marital and nonmarital property applies to retirement benefits. \"It is well-settled in Missouri that only the portion of retirement benefits which are acquired during marriage are considered marital property subject to division under § 452.330.\" Rich v. Rich, 871 S.W.2d 618, 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); see also Gambrel v. Gambrel, 943 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); Mabon v. Mabon, 833 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Mo. App"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: decree incorporated a written Separation Agreement signed by both Husband and Wife. Husband was employed at the Marine Corps Finance Center in Kansas City, an agency of the federal government, during the marriage. His compensation package included certain pension rights through the Civil Service Retirement System. The Separation Agreement incorporated into the Dissolution Decree provided that Husband transferred to Wife Fifty percent (50%) of the Husband‟s Civil Service Retirement System \"annuity with survivor benefit to named person having an insurable interest\" as the surviving beneficiary thereof, subject to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac5aa010-f7d7-4195-8a31-125925f03578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2676785-2676785","title":"CourtListener opinion 2676785","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 S.W.3d 869","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: LED: June 3, 2014 Respondent. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County The Honorable Twila K. Rigby, Judge Before Division Two: Victor C. Howard, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ. Deborah Roberts (\"Wife\") appeals from a qualified domestic relations order or \"QDRO\" entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which specifies that, under a 1990 dissolution decree, Wife is entitled to one-half of only the marital portion of her ex-husband‟s retirement benefits. We affirm. Factual Background Wife was married to Michael Roberts (\"Husband\") on April 9, 1976. Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2679768 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of VIRGINIA C. and DAVID H. Extracted reporter citation: 937 F.2d 1450. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679768 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of appellant Virginia C. Moon and respondent David H. Rush ended in September 1995 with a judgment of dissolution and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401(k) profit sharing plan (plan) for the benefit of Virginia as alternate payee. The plan admi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ABIB & MCKENNA 401(K) PROFIT-SHARING PLAN, Respondent. The marriage of appellant Virginia C. Moon and respondent David H. Rush ended in September 1995 with a judgment of dissolution and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: wishes.\" Habib offered to transfer the assets held for Virginia to another plan or distribute them to her or, alternatively, to provide her with annual account statements. Habib enclosed with the letter a detailed written summary of assets under the heading \"Pension Benefits Statement Regarding Virginia Moon's Interest in Peters, et al. Profit Sharing Plan, as set 4 forth in Paragraph 9 of the Stipulation & Order Dividing Community Interest In Employee Benefit Plan entered September 26, 1995, in Marriage of Rush, Butte Superior Court Case No. FL004059.\" Fifteen months later, in October 2011, counsel for Virginia as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"220c5e58-908c-4d53-a733-244e4b5334d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679768-2679768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 F.2d 1450","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: on and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401(k) profit sharing plan (plan) for the benefit of Virginia as alternate payee. The plan administrator, David's law partner Mark Habib, responded that David had managed Virgin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2679799 Extracted case name: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON. Extracted reporter citation: 270 P.3d 556. Docket: 20120229. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679799 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nthly payments would not start until he retired some time after it had vested. 2 Cite as: 2014 UT 21 Opinion of the Court was reduced by the amount that he received under the disability award. ¶ 5 In October 2008, Ms. Zoric filed in district court for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in another attempt to secure her portion of Mr. Johnson‘s retirement benefit. The district court, in an effort to comply with the 1984 divorce decree, awarded Ms. Zoric her marital share of Mr. Johnson‘s actual monthly benefit, based on his salary at the time of retirement and his number of years of service, less the disability reduction.3 The distri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: PARRISH, and JUSTICE LEE joined. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE NEHRING, opinion of the Court: INTRODUCTION ¶ 1 On certiorari, we consider whether our court of appeals erred when it held that an action to enforce the ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations. We also consider whether the court of appeals erred when it determined that the petitioner‘s argument concerning laches was inadequately briefed according to the standards set by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Lastly, we consider whether a panel majority of the court of appeals erred in applying the ―ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: JUSTICE PARRISH, and JUSTICE LEE joined. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE NEHRING, opinion of the Court: INTRODUCTION ¶ 1 On certiorari, we consider whether our court of appeals erred when it held that an action to enforce the ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations. We also consider whether the court of appeals erred when it determined that the petitioner‘s argument concerning laches was inadequately briefed according to the standards set by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Lastly, we consider whether a panel majority of the court of appeals erred"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b04384d6-2a4b-4aa4-81ea-5f158b5a668a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679799-2679799","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679799","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20120229","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 5 13 A QDRO instructs ―the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when. Although a QDRO cannot order the payment of a benefit which is not allowed under a particular plan, it can order partial payment to an alternate payee (an ex-spouse, for example).‖ Bailey v. Bailey, 745 P.2d 830, 832 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). 14 Johnson v. Johnson, 2012 UT App 22, ¶ 5, 270 P.3d 556. In the district court‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court concluded: It is uncontroverted that on August 7, 1998, [Ms. Zoric] made application to the Air Force to claim her interest in [Mr. Jo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2679924 Extracted case name: J. KENNEBEC COUNTY v. MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALEXANDER. Extracted reporter citation: 1 A.3d 431. Docket: for entry of a judgment vacating the Board. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679924 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: matter. See, e.g., 5 M.R.S. § 17105 (2013) (setting forth the duties of the executive director); McPhee, 2009 ME 100, ¶¶ 20-21, 980 A.2d 1257 (noting the limits of the executive director's authority in deciding matters pursuant to the statute relating to a qualified domestic relations order and the resulting limitation on the Board's review of that decision).14 13 Contrary to MPERS's implied contention, the fact that the three employees at issue in this appeal ultimately enrolled in MPERS in 2010, becoming \"members\" then, does not confer authority on the Board to decide the enrollment matters at issue here when that authority did not exist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he employees were initially hired long before the employees began efforts to join MPERS; (2) at each employee's initial hiring, the County was obligated to adequately apprise its employees of MPERS's existence, their eligibility to participate in the MPERS retirement plan, and the terms of the plan; and (3) the County had failed to meet that obligation with respect to certain employees. 2 [¶2] Based on those conclusions, the Board ordered the County to pay the local government contribution, with interest, and the interest on each employee's contribution, for the many years between when these employees were hired full"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): County action may be imported from 5 M.R.S. § 18252-A(2)(C), (D). [¶15] Title 5 M.R.S. § 18252-A(2)(C) and (D) addresses membership for employees of PLDs that, unlike Kennebec County, do not offer a Social Security coverage option but do offer a qualified defined contribution or deferred compensation retirement plan pursuant to 5 M.R.S § 18252-B (2013). In contrast to section 18252, which is silent on the matter, paragraphs (C) and, more particularly, (D) of section 18252-A(2) explicitly authorize MPERS and its Board to make final administrative decisions related to employee plan participation and membership, in matters in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bce8b74b-9ada-457c-a7f4-75ff7661a211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2679924-2679924","title":"CourtListener opinion 2679924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of a judgment vacating the Board","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 A.3d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e, e.g., 5 M.R.S. § 17105 (2013) (setting forth the duties of the executive director); McPhee, 2009 ME 100, ¶¶ 20-21, 980 A.2d 1257 (noting the limits of the executive director's authority in deciding matters pursuant to the statute relating to a qualified domestic relations order and the resulting limitation on the Board's review of that decision).14 13 Contrary to MPERS's implied contention, the fact that the three employees at issue in this appeal ultimately enrolled in MPERS in 2010, becoming \"members\" then, does not confer authority on the Board to decide the enrollment matters at issue here when that authority did not exist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2680364 Extracted reporter citation: 757 N.W.2d 50. Docket: 20130353. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2680364 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t is over $800,000? I don't want to be difficult, Mark, but I would just like to know how you figure that that is a fair trade. If we are going to try to get this settled, that retirement account has to be figured into the equation. Are you thinking of a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] which gives her one-half of his retirement? David Meier's attorney, who is now deceased, answered in a November 8, 2004 letter: It seems that the biggest misunderstanding is your assumption that David's retirement is over $800,000.00. I'm enclosing a copy of the statement that I sent you earlier. The figure of $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hael P. Hurly, P.O. Box 838, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301-0838, for defendant and appellant. Meier v. Meier No. 20130353 McEvers, Justice. [¶1] David Meier appeals from an amended divorce judgment awarding Gayla Meier a share of his Tier II railroad retirement benefits. We conclude the district court abused its discretion in granting Gayla Meier's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the divorce judgment because, as a matter of law, the motion was not made within a reasonable time. We reverse the amended judgment. I [¶2] David and Gayla Meier divorced in January 2005 after 27 years of marriage. The part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ng for the railroad. The compensation under this retirement program has no cash value at this point. David cannot neither change, modify, or withdraw from this account until he reaches retirement age. When he retires, Gayla will receive one-half of the pension and therefore they will both get equal amounts. This again has no factor in the divorce. Please check the Railroad Retirement Board for the accuracy of my statements if you doubt them. I do remember that your uncle was a life long railroad employee and if he still lives, I know he can verify this statement. [¶3] Gayla Meier did not contact the Railroa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bef0f36-64ef-4e94-8ee6-5befef13edef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2680364-2680364","title":"CourtListener opinion 2680364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130353","extracted_reporter_citation":"757 N.W.2d 50","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 00? I don't want to be difficult, Mark, but I would just like to know how you figure that that is a fair trade. If we are going to try to get this settled, that retirement account has to be figured into the equation. Are you thinking of a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] which gives her one-half of his retirement? David Meier's attorney, who is now deceased, answered in a November 8, 2004 letter: It seems that the biggest misunderstanding is your assumption that David's retirement is over $800,000.00. I'm enclosing a copy of the statement that I sent you earlier. The figure of $861,493.18 that you refer to is the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d50a525-6c19-467e-aa31-eec9128635ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shall be treated as filed on the same day as","extracted_reporter_citation":"446 U.S. 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2681071 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES. Extracted reporter citation: 446 U.S. 1. Docket: shall be treated as filed on the same day as. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681071 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d50a525-6c19-467e-aa31-eec9128635ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shall be treated as filed on the same day as","extracted_reporter_citation":"446 U.S. 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d50a525-6c19-467e-aa31-eec9128635ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681071-2681071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shall be treated as filed on the same day as","extracted_reporter_citation":"446 U.S. 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Jenkins, this Court dismissed an appeal as premature when the notice of appeal was filed after an oral ruling that ended with the following statement: \"[c]ounsel shall prepare an appropriate declaratory judgment and, if necessary, an order in the nature of a QDRO.\" 112 Md. App. at 397. We explained that Rule 8-602(d) in its then present form did not apply when the oral ruling was not intended to be final at the time it was made. The Rule then stated: A notice of appeal from a ruling, decision, or order that would be appealable upon its entry on the docket, filed after the announcement of the ruling, decision, or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2681113 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. DOMINION COVE POINT LNG. Extracted reporter citation: 193 F.3d 818. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681113 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ssification of the DROP payments as pension before the Retirement System, the circuit court and, upon the grant of a bypass certiorari, the Court of Appeals. Id. at 645-47. Before the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs argued that under the language of the qualified domestic relations orders, the DROP payments did not qualify as pension payments and therefore, the former wives were not entitled to any portion. Id. at 650. In support, they contended that the DROP program was not offered until years after their divorces, therefore the parties could not have intended for the payments to be considered as pensions. Id. at 651. The Court applied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , we shall discuss whether the 2005 Agreement was ambiguous. In Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 642 (2006), the plaintiffs were two former police officers challenging the circuit court's finding that benefits from their retirement plan qualified as pension payments, thus entitling their former -9- spouses to a portion thereof. The plaintiffs became police officers in the 1960's and divorced their spouses in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Id. at 643-44. Each plaintiff's divorce decree required that the former wives were to receive 50% of any pension payments made to the plaintiffs. Id."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e 2005 Agreement was ambiguous. In Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 642 (2006), the plaintiffs were two former police officers challenging the circuit court's finding that benefits from their retirement plan qualified as pension payments, thus entitling their former -9- spouses to a portion thereof. The plaintiffs became police officers in the 1960's and divorced their spouses in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Id. at 643-44. Each plaintiff's divorce decree required that the former wives were to receive 50% of any pension payments made to the plaintiffs. Id. In 1996, the plainti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76535af-2168-4e84-a4f8-596222b3f266","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681113-2681113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 F.3d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n of the DROP payments as pension before the Retirement System, the circuit court and, upon the grant of a bypass certiorari, the Court of Appeals. Id. at 645-47. Before the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs argued that under the language of the qualified domestic relations orders, the DROP payments did not qualify as pension payments and therefore, the former wives were not entitled to any portion. Id. at 650. In support, they contended that the DROP program was not offered until years after their divorces, therefore the parties could not have intended for the payments to be considered as pensions. Id. at 651. The Court applied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9460a0b7-3ae3-4d53-906e-6ecc5f7b5594","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2681162 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Link. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-13-1306 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9460a0b7-3ae3-4d53-906e-6ecc5f7b5594","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9460a0b7-3ae3-4d53-906e-6ecc5f7b5594","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's \"reservation\" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the \"reserved-jurisdiction\" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9460a0b7-3ae3-4d53-906e-6ecc5f7b5594","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2681162-2681162","title":"CourtListener opinion 2681162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-1306 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax - 22 - 2014 IL App (2d) 131306 consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2684566 Extracted case name: NORA LYNNE VALENTINE v. JOEL ROBERT VALENTINE. Extracted reporter citation: 70 A.3d 13. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684566 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted that the defendant shall be responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e defendant shall be responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated with their respective motor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated with their respective motor vehicles,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efa28829-b77b-471b-870f-dc0c5dca36ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684566-2684566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"70 A.3d 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: on the motion and its substance; and (2) improperly issued excessive financial orders.1 We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. The trial court entered financial orders for child sup- port, alimony, and property division incident to its judg- ment dissolving the parties' marriage. The plaintiff later filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of those orders. The next day, the court granted in part the plaintiff's motion and entered additional financial orders without holding a hearing. The defendant subse- quently initiated this appeal challenging both the propri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f26e5698-86c6-474d-acd9-05d11172cb9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 1021","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2684687 Extracted case name: ANDREA MEKRUT v. MICHAEL SUITS. Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 1021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684687 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f26e5698-86c6-474d-acd9-05d11172cb9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 1021","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f26e5698-86c6-474d-acd9-05d11172cb9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 1021","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ge. The defendant was ordered to pay weekly alimony in the amount of $550 until August 13, 2012, and thereafter $450 until August 13, 2019. Both parties were ordered to contribute to the cost of their daughter's college expenses and to the cost of preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) regarding the division of retirement funds. On September 6, 2011, the defendant's employment was terminated, whereupon he received a severance payment in the net amount of $106,528.32. Initially, he continued to pay his alimony obligation, but on Febru- ary 24, 2012, he ceased payments. At the same time, he spent more than $30,000 of his severance p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f26e5698-86c6-474d-acd9-05d11172cb9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684687-2684687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 1021","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fendant was ordered to pay weekly alimony in the amount of $550 until August 13, 2012, and thereafter $450 until August 13, 2019. Both parties were ordered to contribute to the cost of their daughter's college expenses and to the cost of preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) regarding the division of retirement funds. On September 6, 2011, the defendant's employment was terminated, whereupon he received a severance payment in the net amount of $106,528.32. Initially, he continued to pay his alimony obligation, but on Febru- ary 24, 2012, he ceased payments. At the same time, he spent more than $30,000 of his severance p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2684763 Extracted case name: J.M. v. HOBBS. Extracted reporter citation: 797 N.W.2d 227. Docket: S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684763 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pecial legis- lation and dismissed J.M.'s motion. 3. Scope of L.B. 916 The amendment to § 81-2032 is representative of the way that L.B. 916 amended anti-attachment statutes for all affected public employees' retirement plans. Subject to assignment under a qualified domestic relations order, an absolute exemp- tion from attachment of retirement assets still exists for most State Patrol officers under § 81-2032(1). But L.B. 916 created six exceptions by adding subsection (2) to the statute: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all annuities or benefits . . . shall not be subject to [any] process of law whatsoever and sha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 281 Neb. 539, 797 N.W.2d 227 (2011). 2 See, 2012 Neb. Laws, L.B. 916; § 81-2032 (Cum. Supp. 2012). Nebraska Advance Sheets 548 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS officers whose retirement assets are not subject to attachment because (1) the act does not apply to their retirement plans or (2) they pleaded no contest or were convicted of a serious crime that is not included in the act. We conclude that under the act's stated purpose of providing compensation to the vic- tims of serious crimes, no substantial difference exists between the favored groups of victims and employees and those victims and employees who do not receive the act's b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and a court awarded J.M. a civil judgment of $325,000. 1. J.M.'s First Appeal to This Court In J.M.'s first attempt to obtain an order in aid of execution, he alleged that Hobbs was a judgment debtor and, although incarcerated, was receiving a retirement pension from the State Patrol. Hobbs objected that under § 81-2032, his retirement assets were exempt from legal process. At that time, § 81-2032 provided that \"[a]ll annuities or benefits which any person shall be entitled to receive under [the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act] shall not be subject to garnishment, attach- ment, levy, the operation of bankruptc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3576c7e8-59c3-4e51-b71b-da57a415922c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684763-2684763","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:","extracted_reporter_citation":"797 N.W.2d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is- lation and dismissed J.M.'s motion. 3. Scope of L.B. 916 The amendment to § 81-2032 is representative of the way that L.B. 916 amended anti-attachment statutes for all affected public employees' retirement plans. Subject to assignment under a qualified domestic relations order, an absolute exemp- tion from attachment of retirement assets still exists for most State Patrol officers under § 81-2032(1). But L.B. 916 created six exceptions by adding subsection (2) to the statute: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all annuities or benefits . . . shall not be subject to [any] process of law whatsoever and sha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5009678-ed74-4d52-a510-0a783ce53011","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"898 S.W.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2684890 Extracted case name: JEAN MARIE BAILEY v. BILLIE CARSON BAILEY. Extracted reporter citation: 898 S.W.2d 177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684890 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5009678-ed74-4d52-a510-0a783ce53011","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"898 S.W.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5009678-ed74-4d52-a510-0a783ce53011","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"898 S.W.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and child support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she was unemployed at the time of the divorce). He contended that she no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5009678-ed74-4d52-a510-0a783ce53011","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"898 S.W.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e to terminate or modify spousal support and child support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5009678-ed74-4d52-a510-0a783ce53011","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2684890-2684890","title":"CourtListener opinion 2684890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"898 S.W.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she was unemployed at the time of the divorce). He contended that she no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2687360 Extracted case name: FRIDAY v. FRIDAY. HINES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687360 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pecifically found that Husband was able to pay more than $179 per month, found him in wilful contempt for failure to pay child support, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $8,000 instanter in order to purge himself of the contempt and to submit to the court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding Husband's retirement plan assets within 30 days of the entry of the order. 1. Husband contends that it was error for the trial court to impute income of $4,180 per month to him in addition to the $1,320 in monthly unemployment benefits he received. However, the trial court is empowered to impute income for willful or voluntary unemployment o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 07 (2) (485 SE2d 187) (1997), and there is no error in this regard. Burke, supra.3 4. Finally, in the final order addressing the contempt petition, the trial court directed Husband to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")4 in regard to his retirement accounts; Husband contends that this was 3 Although there is no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order as to Husband's responsibility to purge himself of contempt, we note that the order fails to account for payment of the remaining $4,915 of Husband's prior unpaid obligation. 4 A QDRO is a \"domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 's responsibility to purge himself of contempt, we note that the order fails to account for payment of the remaining $4,915 of Husband's prior unpaid obligation. 4 A QDRO is a \"domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or 10 an impermissible modification of the original divorce decree. \"‘While the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the decree has been violated and has authority to interpret and clarify the decree, it does not have the power in a contempt proceeding to modify the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdfe34a3-cab7-4fa6-aa35-fe853674b856","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687360-2687360","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y found that Husband was able to pay more than $179 per month, found him in wilful contempt for failure to pay child support, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $8,000 instanter in order to purge himself of the contempt and to submit to the court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding Husband's retirement plan assets within 30 days of the entry of the order. 1. Husband contends that it was error for the trial court to impute income of $4,180 per month to him in addition to the $1,320 in monthly unemployment benefits he received. However, the trial court is empowered to impute income for willful or voluntary unemployment o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b51a7f26-aa1a-4d44-b82b-9a07ae40709c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0778","extracted_reporter_citation":"549 N.W.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2687610 Extracted reporter citation: 549 N.W.2d 810. Docket: 13–0778. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687610 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b51a7f26-aa1a-4d44-b82b-9a07ae40709c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0778","extracted_reporter_citation":"549 N.W.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b51a7f26-aa1a-4d44-b82b-9a07ae40709c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0778","extracted_reporter_citation":"549 N.W.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he Garrs' damages. The question posed to Dr. Melvin by the City's counsel, a counterfactual, goes to the core of the but-for causation test. See Faber, 731 N.W.2d at 11 (concluding that although an attorney negligently drafted an illegal stipulation in a qualified domestic relations order, the damages would have been the same if the attorney had drafted a legal stipulation); see also David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in Fact, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1765, 1770 (1997) (explaining the but-for causation test requires \"using the imagination to create a counterfactual 12 hypothesis\"). In other words, Dr. Melvin's answers confirmed that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b51a7f26-aa1a-4d44-b82b-9a07ae40709c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687610-2687610","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0778","extracted_reporter_citation":"549 N.W.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: damages. The question posed to Dr. Melvin by the City's counsel, a counterfactual, goes to the core of the but-for causation test. See Faber, 731 N.W.2d at 11 (concluding that although an attorney negligently drafted an illegal stipulation in a qualified domestic relations order, the damages would have been the same if the attorney had drafted a legal stipulation); see also David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in Fact, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1765, 1770 (1997) (explaining the but-for causation test requires \"using the imagination to create a counterfactual 12 hypothesis\"). In other words, Dr. Melvin's answers confirmed that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2687685 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANITA D. GHEE AND WILLIAM J. GHEE JR. Extracted reporter citation: 431 N.W.2d 773. Docket: 13-1780. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687685 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: agreed one-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. \"Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code,\" a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce.\" In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. 2 BOWER, J. William Joseph Ghee Jr. appeals the decree of dissolution of marriage to Anita Diane Arnold, f/k/a Anita Diane Ghee. He claims the district should have awarded him one half of Anita's federal pension. We find the failure to award a portion of Anita's pension was not equitable and award William one-quarter of the pension. We affirm as modified and remand. I. Background Facts and Proceedings William married Anita on July 1, 1989. Anita filed for dissolution of marriage on February 21, 2013. The parties have no minor children. At the time of trial,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s pension. During trial, the parties agreed one-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. \"Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code,\" a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce.\" In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25df22d6-7b93-4092-98a9-a28ff88880b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687685-2687685","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1780","extracted_reporter_citation":"431 N.W.2d 773","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. \"Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code,\" a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce.\" In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1017e636-67ab-4638-a34c-847a4ae1dbaf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1195","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 N.W.2d 859","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2687825 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jacobo. Extracted reporter citation: 526 N.W.2d 859. Docket: 13-1195. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687825 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1017e636-67ab-4638-a34c-847a4ae1dbaf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1195","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 N.W.2d 859","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1017e636-67ab-4638-a34c-847a4ae1dbaf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1195","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 N.W.2d 859","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ris challenges a finding of contempt. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Robert and Lauralei Harris dissolved their marriage after forty years. In pertinent part, the district court awarded Lauralei seventy-two percent of Robert's Edward Jones IRA. A qualified domestic relations order was entered, paving the way for funds to be transferred to Lauralei. Approximately one month after the order was filed, Lauralei applied to have Robert held in contempt for \"refus[ing]\" to sign and send a required form facilitating the transfer.1 Robert failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. His attorney did appear. The proceeding was not reported,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1017e636-67ab-4638-a34c-847a4ae1dbaf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1195","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 N.W.2d 859","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ontempt beyond a reasonable doubt based on Robert's failure to \"execute any and all instruments necessary to transfer assets consistent with the Decree.\" The court stated Robert's failure to execute the document \"frustrated the transfer of the Edward Jones retirement account.\" The court proceeded to divide the account between the parties. Robert filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the supreme court granted. The case was transferred to this court for disposition. 1 Robert filed a similar application based on Lauralei's claimed failure to meet her alimony obligation. That application is not at issue here. 3 II"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1017e636-67ab-4638-a34c-847a4ae1dbaf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687825-2687825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1195","extracted_reporter_citation":"526 N.W.2d 859","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nges a finding of contempt. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Robert and Lauralei Harris dissolved their marriage after forty years. In pertinent part, the district court awarded Lauralei seventy-two percent of Robert's Edward Jones IRA. A qualified domestic relations order was entered, paving the way for funds to be transferred to Lauralei. Approximately one month after the order was filed, Lauralei applied to have Robert held in contempt for \"refus[ing]\" to sign and send a required form facilitating the transfer.1 Robert failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. His attorney did appear. The proceeding was not reported,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2687978 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER M. CAMPBELL AND JOEL T. CAMPBELL Upon the Petition of JENNIFER M. Extracted reporter citation: 705 N.W.2d 312. Docket: 13-1383. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687978 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tioner asserts these assets should be disregarded in evaluating the property division. Respondent asserts the present account values should be used in calculating the property division. At trial, neither party requested that these accounts be divided by a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order]. After entry of the decree, and in light of the Court's ruling on other issues, Petitioner requested by post-trial motion that her account be divided in order to reduce the amount of the property equalization judgment Petitioner will owe Respondent. I have granted that portion of the motion. Petitioner's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: resides with his mother, his sister and her fiancé, and their children. Jennifer has worked for the Integer Group throughout the marriage. She expects to earn $50,000 in 2013. Her benefit 3 package includes medical, health, and dental insurance, a 401(k) retirement account, short and long-term disability insurance, and life insurance. She now holds the position of senior account executive. After an internship Joel held a number of part-time jobs. He began to work at Wells Fargo in 2011 as a contract employee through the Palmer Group. He obtained full-time employment with Wells Fargo in December 2012. He anticipates earning $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rently resides with his mother, his sister and her fiancé, and their children. Jennifer has worked for the Integer Group throughout the marriage. She expects to earn $50,000 in 2013. Her benefit 3 package includes medical, health, and dental insurance, a 401(k) retirement account, short and long-term disability insurance, and life insurance. She now holds the position of senior account executive. After an internship Joel held a number of part-time jobs. He began to work at Wells Fargo in 2011 as a contract employee through the Palmer Group. He obtained full-time employment with Wells Fargo in December 2012. He an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d081a5c3-7451-4e4f-95b7-f5db0fe47b1b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2687978-2687978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2687978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1383","extracted_reporter_citation":"705 N.W.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hese assets should be disregarded in evaluating the property division. Respondent asserts the present account values should be used in calculating the property division. At trial, neither party requested that these accounts be divided by a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order]. After entry of the decree, and in light of the Court's ruling on other issues, Petitioner requested by post-trial motion that her account be divided in order to reduce the amount of the property equalization judgment Petitioner will owe Respondent. I have granted that portion of the motion. Petitioner's retirement account will be divided equally effe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2688238 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Brown. Extracted reporter citation: 776 N.W.2d 644. Docket: 3-1113 / 13-0534. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688238 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: CKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JAMES ALLEN HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge. A divorced spouse contends a qualified domestic relations order entitles her to an amount specified in the order and not an amount that accounts for investment losses. AFFIRMED. Joseph W. Younker of Bradley & Riley, P.C., Iowa City, for appellant. Leslie D. Lamping of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ. 2 VAITHESWAR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: in the order or an amount that accounted for investment losses. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Cindy and James Hinckley dissolved their marriage. The dissolution decree incorporated a stipulation under which Cindy was to receive $165,746 of Jim's retirement account, to be distributed pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO was executed two months after the dissolution decree was filed, and funds were transmitted to Cindy five months after the decree was filed. In the interim, the account value plummeted from $342,139.55 to $220,916.33. Cindy only received $103,981.25. Cindy filed an application seeking a declaration of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 61,844.75. The district court concluded that the amount Cindy received \"was proper and correct.\" Cindy appealed. II. Analysis Cindy contends the language governing this appeal appears in a section of the QDRO titled \"amount of benefit to be paid to the alternate payee.\" 1 That section states Cindy's interest in the plan will be \"$165,746 of [Jim's] Account Balance as of October 3, 2008\" (the date the dissolution decree was filed) and the interest will \"be subject to earnings and losses subsequent to October 3, 1 Cindy does not argue that the QDRO is inconsistent with the language of the dissolution decree. See In re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20685e67-f309-43ec-addb-d3b9af135e0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688238-2688238","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3-1113 / 13-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"776 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aintiff-Appellant, vs. JAMES ALLEN HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge. A divorced spouse contends a qualified domestic relations order entitles her to an amount specified in the order and not an amount that accounts for investment losses. AFFIRMED. Joseph W. Younker of Bradley & Riley, P.C., Iowa City, for appellant. Leslie D. Lamping of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ. 2 VAITHESWAR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2688415 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Smith. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-12-1245 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688415 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hall keep the SRIP as his sole property.\" ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans, i.e. the pensions and the SRIP account. It appears that, after awarding John his entire SRIP account, the court intended to maintain the 50/50 division of the benefit plans by awarding Ellen a corresponding amount from other assets, which the court can specify on remand. Regardless, the intended 50/50 divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney fees, but it l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: irement plans (benefit plans). In paragraph 2, the trial court stated, \"[t]he value of John's SRIP [supplemental retirement income plan] account as of 6/28/12 shall be divided 50/50 by way of an additional/greater percentage award of either John's Allstate pension or Allstate 401(k) distribution to [Ellen]. John shall keep the SRIP as his sole property.\" ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"410e768a-dcad-4d76-98b7-3b7649b87479","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688415-2688415","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688415","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-12-1245 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ed stock units (RSUs). On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2688447 Extracted case name: L ORI A. R OBINETTE v. L UANN H UNSECKER. Extracted reporter citation: 897 A.2d 810. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688447 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: allows for an \"alternate payee\" to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant pursuant to a court order that satisfies various requirements set forth in the federal statute. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. at 32-36. Such a court order is called a \"qualified domestic relations order\" or \"QDRO\" in ERISA lingo. See 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(3); 26 U.S.C. §414(p). ERISA's requirements broadly apply to most retirement plans and preempt contrary provisions of state law. 29 U.S.C. §1144(a). But not all retirement plans are regulated by ERISA. Notably, government-sponsored plans are specifically exempt from the federal statute. See 29 U.S.C. §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Law - Divorce - Property Settlement - Retirement and Death Benefits - Constructive Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Following the husband's death, the first wife sought a portion of the death benefits already pai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Lori A. Robinette v. Luann Hunsecker No. 90, September Term 2013 Family Law - Divorce - Property Settlement - Retirement and Death Benefits - Constructive Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Followi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71c5a715-3266-443e-a05f-421c9a25c19a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2688447-2688447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2688447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"897 A.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Following the husband's death, the first wife sought a portion of the death benefits already paid, and to be paid in the future, to the second wife. The Circuit Court h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014458e8-fe1c-4fd3-8513-120d0e9ac3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 N.E.2d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2689442 Extracted reporter citation: 400 N.E.2d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2689442 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014458e8-fe1c-4fd3-8513-120d0e9ac3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 N.E.2d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014458e8-fe1c-4fd3-8513-120d0e9ac3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 N.E.2d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t's share of the home equity equaled approximately $22,750. Appellee also testified that under the divorce decree agreement, the parties' retirement accounts were to be valuated and the combined marital portions were \"to be set-off by individual reciprocal QDRO's.\"3 {¶ 8} Appellee further explained how the parties later agreed that appellant would be entitled to only $15,000 from the home equity proceeds, as stated in the 2013 Memorandum Entry and Agreed Judgment Entry. According to appellee, appellant owed her money for payment of their children's medical bills, and he had taken $5,000 worth of personal prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014458e8-fe1c-4fd3-8513-120d0e9ac3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 N.E.2d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y Plaintiff forthwith; 2. That the parties shall set a closing as soon as practicable; 3. That the Defendant shall receive $15,000 from closing proceeds. Said sum is in satisfaction of the entire division of property; 4. That each party shall keep any retirement accounts in their names; 5. That all medical bills shall be deemed reimbursed through January 1, 2013; 6. That Plaintiff shall receive Quit Claim Deed and proceeds shall be payable from Plaintiff's counsel's trust account to Defendant and his counsel; 7. That counsel shall report to Court by June 15, 2013; 8. That Defendant shall cooperate in the finance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"014458e8-fe1c-4fd3-8513-120d0e9ac3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689442-2689442","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"400 N.E.2d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: property rights was a one-half interest in the value of the equity in the real estate as determined by appraisal which would occur subsequent to the agreement. The other property right is an interest in the value of the property of the parties combined pension plans or retirement plans. This is both, these are both set forth very clearly in the transcript. And the Decree of Divorce refers to the agreement of the parties set forth on the record. So in December of 2010, this defendant had property rights established by the Decree in a potential QDRO and in the real estate. Then throughout an extremely litig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2689556 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: of motions with the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2689556 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ,\" further identified in the settlement agreement as the \"LTV Steel Pension of $3,954.13.\" No other pension was mentioned, although Moyer owned two other pension plans at the time of divorce. In the final divorce decree, neither party was ordered to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") effectuating the transfer of Moyer's interest in the LTV Steel Pension plan to Klik. The trial court, in the original 1993 entry, merely noted that a QDRO was issued with the final judgment entry, an inaccurate statement. 1 The settlement agreement indicated that a QDRO would \"be prepared by agreement of the parties and incorporated into this f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nsion she believed was awarded to her in the divorce. {¶4} In June 2011, Klik filed a number of motions with the trial court, including a motion to show cause for noncompliance with a judgment entry, motion for attorney fees, motion to reduce to judgment retirement benefits improperly received, motion to issue a QDRO, motion to recharacterize pension benefits pursuant to decree of divorce, motion to vacate order of the court, and motion to quash.2 The magistrate held a single hearing, addressing each and every one of Klik's motions. {¶5} The trial court, on September 26, 2013, largely adopted the magistrate's ultimate d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: defendant-appellee Samuel Moyer were divorced on June 15, 1993, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, incorporated into the final decree. As made pertinent by the current dispute, Klik was specifically awarded Moyer's interest in the \"LTV Steel Pension,\" further identified in the settlement agreement as the \"LTV Steel Pension of $3,954.13.\" No other pension was mentioned, although Moyer owned two other pension plans at the time of divorce. In the final divorce decree, neither party was ordered to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") effectuating the transfer of Moyer's interest in the LT"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3590f9cc-c367-4887-a153-926cfaea58dc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2689556-2689556","title":"CourtListener opinion 2689556","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of motions with the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ensions at the time of the parties' divorce, formally known as the \"Pension Plan of Republic Steel Corporation, dated and effective as of March 1, 1950,\" and the \"LTV Steel-USWA Pension Plan.\" It is undisputed that in 1993, the LTV Steel-USWA Pension was a defined contribution plan with a value of 1 The current trial court judge was not the judge at the time of the 1993 divorce. $3,954.13. Moyer contributed to the USWA plan after the 1993 divorce. Sometime in 2002, Moyer retired and began drawing benefits from his pension, by then called LTV Steel Hourly Pension Plan, which was an amalgamation of the LTV Steel-USWA and Rep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2690138 Extracted reporter citation: 791 N.E.2d 434. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690138 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fit. The trial court in that case included in the divorce decree the following language: \"The defendant shall receive one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension if and when it becomes vested. This division shall be through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared and signed at the time of the vesting.\"1 Wilson at ¶ 3. {¶ 13} Similarly, in Hoyt this court approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: EL, APPELLANT, v. DANIEL, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Daniel v. Daniel, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1161.] Domestic relations—Divorce—Marital property—R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)— Military retirement benefits—Unvested military retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital property subject to division—Present value need not be determined—Court may fashion order deferring distribution until benefits become payable. (No. 2012-2113—Submitted October 22, 2013—Decided March 26, 2014.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mercer County, No. 10-11-09, 20"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: entered into an agreement regarding custody of the three children, so their divorce trial related only to division of property and debt. {¶ 4} The matter was heard by a magistrate, who concluded that \"Ohio law does not permit the court to divide a non-vested pension benefit.\" The plaintiff-wife objected to this finding, arguing that \"since the Defendant is already contractually committed to remain in the military through vesting ‘age', the court should have divided one-half of his retirement benefits during the years of marriage.\" The plaintiff contended that the court erred in concluding that unvested military benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c655549d-1a04-4c39-b36c-07c08f98cb68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690138-2690138","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rial court in that case included in the divorce decree the following language: \"The defendant shall receive one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension if and when it becomes vested. This division shall be through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared and signed at the time of the vesting.\"1 Wilson at ¶ 3. {¶ 13} Similarly, in Hoyt this court approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f9063b7-c470-484c-a7ab-7b8848791223","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690592","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.E.2d 1006","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2690592 Extracted case name: DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MATLOCK. Extracted reporter citation: 726 N.E.2d 1006. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690592 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f9063b7-c470-484c-a7ab-7b8848791223","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690592","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.E.2d 1006","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f9063b7-c470-484c-a7ab-7b8848791223","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690592","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.E.2d 1006","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: atlock committed professional misconduct by failing to obtain a written contingent-fee agreement and failing to respond to disciplinary investigative inquiries in one client matter, failing to complete and file forms for a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") for another client, failing to communicate with both clients regarding their legal matters and failing to inform them that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, and commingling private funds and client funds and failing to document transactions for his client trust account. We agree that Matlock committed the professional misconduct found"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f9063b7-c470-484c-a7ab-7b8848791223","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690592-2690592","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690592","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.E.2d 1006","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pare and File QDRO {¶ 10} In 1993, Matlock represented Jeraldine Pettiford in a divorce case. In 2007, after the divorce case had concluded, it was discovered that Matlock had failed to file a QDRO entitling Pettiford to receive a portion of her ex-husband's pension and an annuity. Matlock was to have performed these services as part of his representation of Pettiford in the divorce. In 2007, Matlock demanded and received $450 from Pettiford to file the required QDRO forms with the court, her ex-husband's retirement system, and the company that had the annuity. Despite Matlock's multiple representations to Pettiford th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb10b4ce-357c-4680-8973-936449c567a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"804 N.E.2d 428","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2690626 Extracted case name: DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DANN. Extracted reporter citation: 804 N.E.2d 428. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690626 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb10b4ce-357c-4680-8973-936449c567a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"804 N.E.2d 428","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb10b4ce-357c-4680-8973-936449c567a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"804 N.E.2d 428","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as not assigned the appropriate weight to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and that a fully stayed suspension will adequately protect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF O"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb10b4ce-357c-4680-8973-936449c567a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"804 N.E.2d 428","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: otect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO overrule Dann's objections and adopt the board's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb10b4ce-357c-4680-8973-936449c567a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690626-2690626","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"804 N.E.2d 428","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: igned the appropriate weight to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and that a fully stayed suspension will adequately protect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF O"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff5c109d-9f0b-4286-b4cf-40c82bf5a9c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"did not show that a revised motion had been filed","extracted_reporter_citation":"775 N.E.2d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2690720 Extracted case name: DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORD. Extracted reporter citation: 775 N.E.2d 818. Docket: did not show that a revised motion had been filed. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690720 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff5c109d-9f0b-4286-b4cf-40c82bf5a9c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"did not show that a revised motion had been filed","extracted_reporter_citation":"775 N.E.2d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff5c109d-9f0b-4286-b4cf-40c82bf5a9c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"did not show that a revised motion had been filed","extracted_reporter_citation":"775 N.E.2d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as to receive the jointly owned real property and that Justice was to receive approximately $90,000 from her ex-husband's stock ownership and pension plans. Pursuant to the agreed entry, Justice was to prepare and submit a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to effectuate the division of the stock ownership and pension plans. {¶ 6} Justice signed a quitclaim deed to transfer the real property to her ex-husband during the summer of 2007, but Ford did not forward the executed quitclaim deed to the ex-husband's counsel. Nor did he respond to counsel's multiple requests for the deed or his inquiries about the QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff5c109d-9f0b-4286-b4cf-40c82bf5a9c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2690720-2690720","title":"CourtListener opinion 2690720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"did not show that a revised motion had been filed","extracted_reporter_citation":"775 N.E.2d 818","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: magistrate's decision and agreed judgment entry, which was signed by the judge, specified that Justice's ex-husband was to receive the jointly owned real property and that Justice was to receive approximately $90,000 from her ex-husband's stock ownership and pension plans. Pursuant to the agreed entry, Justice was to prepare and submit a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") to effectuate the division of the stock ownership and pension plans. {¶ 6} Justice signed a quitclaim deed to transfer the real property to her ex-husband during the summer of 2007, but Ford did not forward the executed quitclaim deed to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e660f0f-0d42-40dd-af72-67354a0349dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"462 A.2d 1351","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2691501 Extracted reporter citation: 462 A.2d 1351. Docket: 363 EDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e660f0f-0d42-40dd-af72-67354a0349dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"462 A.2d 1351","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e660f0f-0d42-40dd-af72-67354a0349dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"462 A.2d 1351","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e trial court erred in failing to award [Husband] the full amount of counsel fees incurred. 6) The trial court erred in failing to provide any type of benefits while the action was pending. 7) The trial court erred in denying Husband a revision to the QDRO[2 could be paid to his special needs trust. -ii. Our scope and standard of review are well settled: Awards of alimony, counsel fees, and property distribution are within the sound discretion of the trial court and this court will not reverse, nor interfere with the determination of the trial court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e660f0f-0d42-40dd-af72-67354a0349dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691501-2691501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"462 A.2d 1351","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dence. As a result, under the abuse of discretion standard, we do not usurp the trial court's duty as fact finder; rather, we carefully scrutinize each of the guidelines to ____________________________________________ 1 Alimony pendente lite. 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. -3- J-A02020-14 determine whether the lower court has abused its discretion. Ruth, supra. However, an abuse of discretion will be found by this court if the trial court failed to follow proper legal procedures or misapplied the law. Banks v. Banks, 275 Pa.Super. 439, 418 A.2d 1370 (1980). Braderman v. Braderman, 488 A.2d 613, 615-16 (Pa. Super. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb70a075-1737-4df4-8772-aa6a13736d41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691502","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"603 A.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2691502 Extracted reporter citation: 603 A.2d 641. Docket: 363 EDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691502 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb70a075-1737-4df4-8772-aa6a13736d41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691502","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"603 A.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb70a075-1737-4df4-8772-aa6a13736d41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691502","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"603 A.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ceived nothing. Husband requested that he be awarded these missed payments in his The trial court denied this petition. In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, the trial court justifies this decision by stating that Husband delayed the preparation of a QDRO and the entry of the divorce decree, and that he 12/28/2012, at 15. T initial refusal to sign the QDRO while exceptions were pending cannot be deemed a meritless delaying tactic where, as here, the trial court granted those exceptions in part. Admittedly, Husband did not sign the QDRO immediately after his exceptions were resolved. However, APL was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb70a075-1737-4df4-8772-aa6a13736d41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691502","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"603 A.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Y 29, 2014 claims do not entitle him to relief, and that this case should be remanded for counsel fees. However, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award receive but did not, I respectfully dissent. It is well- pension funds accrued during marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A02020-14 pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife receive"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb70a075-1737-4df4-8772-aa6a13736d41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691502-2691502","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691502","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"363 EDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"603 A.2d 641","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: be remanded for counsel fees. However, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award receive but did not, I respectfully dissent. It is well- pension funds accrued during marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A02020-14 pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife received 100% of the marital portion of her pension, and Husband received nothing. Husband req"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2691749 Extracted reporter citation: 886 N.E.2d 201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691749 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of prohibition (1) to prevent a domestic relations judge from taking any action inconsistent with the court of appeals' ability to affirm, modify, or reverse the judge's January 9, 2009 judgment entry and qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") in an underlying case and (2) to vacate the judge's amended QDRO that was issued while the appeal was pending. Because the judge's action was inconsistent with the court of appeals' authority to review the January 9 judgment and QDRO, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Facts Divorce Decree {¶ 2} In November 1986, appellee, Daniel J."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ions Order, or separate Judgment Entry, whichever is applicable, twenty- five percent (25%) of the accrued monthly benefit that the Defendant, Daniel J. Sullivan, was entitled to receive as of May 14, 1997, from Defendant, Daniel J. Sullivan's interest in his retirement plan with the Civil Service Retirement System, pursuant to the provision of the Spouse Equity Act of 1984.\" (Emphasis sic.) The court further ordered that Janet's \"rights to designate a beneficiary, for survivor benefits, or other related rights under the above described plan, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the plan.\" January 2009 Judgment Entr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: retirement plan. Daniel, without notice, removed his retirement plan from the Civil Service Retirement System and transferred it to the District of Columbia Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan. He retired in 2003 and began receiving all of the pension benefits without allocating anything to Janet pursuant to the divorce decree. {¶ 6} In July 2006, Janet filed motions for the approval of a QDRO, retroactive benefits, and attorney fees. On January 9, 2009, appellant, Judge Donald L. Ramsey, sitting by assignment in the domestic relations court, granted the motions and held that Janet was entitled to a mon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5ac8ab-9767-4238-b04e-f06b79c7d212","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691749-2691749","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691749","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.E.2d 201","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: order was issued \"pursuant to the domestic relations laws of the State of Ohio.\" In addition, the amended QDRO specified that the order was intended to be a QDRO \"as that term is used in Section 206(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [‘ERISA'],\" whereas ERISA was unmentioned in the original QDRO. Prohibition Case {¶ 12} Three weeks after Judge Ramsey issued the amended QDRO, on April 28, Daniel filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of prohibition to vacate the amended QDRO and to prevent the judge from taking any further action that interferes with or is inconsistent with the a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c42826-712e-4ba7-a2f4-7f6579ba22a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2691791 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691791 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c42826-712e-4ba7-a2f4-7f6579ba22a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c42826-712e-4ba7-a2f4-7f6579ba22a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2691791-2691791","title":"CourtListener opinion 2691791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Rothman, were married in 1973. In June 2002, the Rothmans separated; Kathleen subsequently filed for divorce. On June 19, 2007, the trial judge issued a judgment entry granting the divorce and ordering Kathleen to submit a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") within 30 days. When Kathleen did not submit a QDRO, Eric sought and received a 30-day extension to submit his own proposed QDRO, which he submitted on August 24, 2007. On November 13, 2007, the court issued a QDRO in the case. {¶ 3} On November 19, 2007, Eric Rothman filed a notice of appeal. The next day, this court released Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2692868 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.E.2d 175. Docket: 2013-CA-30 Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2692868 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to the parties by their first names. 3 October 1, 1981. Glenn retired on September 30, 2004, over six years after his divorce from Karen became final. In 2009, Karen filed a motion for an order requiring Glenn to provide information for and to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the division of his retirement benefits. Karen also filed a motion to modify the divorce decree. In 2010, Karen dismissed both of these motions. {¶ 4} However, on September 17, 2012, Karen filed a Military Qualifying Order (MQO), which stated, in part, that she was entitled to receive a coverture fraction interest in Glenn's gross retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 5 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. WELBAUM, J. 2 {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Glenn Hulse, appeals from a decision and order of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, clarifying the division of his military retirement benefits with his ex-wife, defendant-appellee, Karen Hulse. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Facts and Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} Glenn and Karen Hulse were married on May 28, 1984. On December 24, 1997, Glenn and Karen1 obtained a final decree of divorce in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: at \"[p]ension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action.\" (Citations omitted.) Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 661 N.E.2d 175 (1996). Regarding the division of pension or retirement benefits, \"[t]he trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms, and conditions of the pension plan, and the reasonableness of the result.\" Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990). 6 {¶ 13} In Hoyt, the Supre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c2c1b3c-9d12-4e35-8ef2-05761e718fd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692868-2692868","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-30 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ties by their first names. 3 October 1, 1981. Glenn retired on September 30, 2004, over six years after his divorce from Karen became final. In 2009, Karen filed a motion for an order requiring Glenn to provide information for and to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the division of his retirement benefits. Karen also filed a motion to modify the divorce decree. In 2010, Karen dismissed both of these motions. {¶ 4} However, on September 17, 2012, Karen filed a Military Qualifying Order (MQO), which stated, in part, that she was entitled to receive a coverture fraction interest in Glenn's gross retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2692947 Extracted reporter citation: 903 N.E.2d 343. Docket: does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2692947 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ordered Madhav to transfer half of the balances in the E*Trade account and the Interactive Brokers account to Neelima. The court ordered the parties to retain their own checking and savings accounts in their own names. The court ordered Madhav to cause two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to be filed so that Neelima receives one half of his 401(k) benefits in his plans through SEI-Services and through Siemens Savings Plan. Neelima was allowed to keep all of the money in her 401(k) plan. The court ordered the parties to retain the household goods, furniture, furnishings and equipment currently in their possession. {¶ 58} We note that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rtgage. Madhav stated that he has investment accounts at E*Trade and Interactive Brokers that he is willing to divide equally. Madhav stated that he has two 401(k) plans, one through SEI Services and one through Siemens Savings Plan, with a total of vested retirement benefits of approximately $190,000.00, which he is willing to divide equally pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He stated that he is willing for Neelima to retain her IRA account with a balance of $5,000.00. Madhav requested that he and Neelima retain the property and household goods currently in each of their possessions. Madhav requested that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): equity in the marital residence in Springboro. He stated that Neelima is not a co-obligor on the mortgage. Madhav stated that he has investment accounts at E*Trade and Interactive Brokers that he is willing to divide equally. Madhav stated that he has two 401(k) plans, one through SEI Services and one through Siemens Savings Plan, with a total of vested retirement benefits of approximately $190,000.00, which he is willing to divide equally pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He stated that he is willing for Neelima to retain her IRA account with a balance of $5,000.00. Madhav requested that he and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f38a41-e44d-4b0e-9867-2527bd7cca00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2692947-2692947","title":"CourtListener opinion 2692947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo","extracted_reporter_citation":"903 N.E.2d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dhav to transfer half of the balances in the E*Trade account and the Interactive Brokers account to Neelima. The court ordered the parties to retain their own checking and savings accounts in their own names. The court ordered Madhav to cause two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to be filed so that Neelima receives one half of his 401(k) benefits in his plans through SEI-Services and through Siemens Savings Plan. Neelima was allowed to keep all of the money in her 401(k) plan. The court ordered the parties to retain the household goods, furniture, furnishings and equipment currently in their possession. {¶ 58} We note that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dab9bb6b-5353-4447-a92a-1c812aea72ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693011","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"632 N.E.2d 916","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693011 Extracted reporter citation: 632 N.E.2d 916. Docket: 2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693011 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dab9bb6b-5353-4447-a92a-1c812aea72ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693011","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"632 N.E.2d 916","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dab9bb6b-5353-4447-a92a-1c812aea72ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693011","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"632 N.E.2d 916","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , 130 West Second Street, Suite 2150, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Anthony L. Printz, Deceased ............. HALL, J., {¶ 1} Anthony Printz appeals the trial court's order that he sign a Qualified Domestic 2 Relations Order (QDRO) that gives his former wife, Karen Printz, a joint interest in his pension benefits. Anthony contends that their decree of divorce gives her only a survivorship interest. In light of the evidence, the court's interpretation of the decree's language is reasonable. We affirm.1 FACTS {¶ 2} In 1986, Karen filed a complaint for divorce. A referee was appo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dab9bb6b-5353-4447-a92a-1c812aea72ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693011","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"632 N.E.2d 916","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Defendant-Appellant, Anthony L. Printz, Deceased ............. HALL, J., {¶ 1} Anthony Printz appeals the trial court's order that he sign a Qualified Domestic 2 Relations Order (QDRO) that gives his former wife, Karen Printz, a joint interest in his pension benefits. Anthony contends that their decree of divorce gives her only a survivorship interest. In light of the evidence, the court's interpretation of the decree's language is reasonable. We affirm.1 FACTS {¶ 2} In 1986, Karen filed a complaint for divorce. A referee was appointed who filed a report and recommendation. In the report, the referee fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dab9bb6b-5353-4447-a92a-1c812aea72ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693011-2693011","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693011","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"632 N.E.2d 916","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: (Aug. 19, 1987 Judgment Entry, 2). {¶ 3} In September 1987, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce. Alimony, the decree says, was the only unresolved issue between the parties. \"[T]he parties have entered into certain oral agreements regarding property division, which are hereinafter set forth in writing.\" (Sept. 28, 1987 Judgment Entry-Final Decree of Divorce, 1). The court stated their agreement regarding Anthony's pension benefits this way: 5. Defendant shall designate Plaintiff as survivorship beneficiary on Defendant's existing Pension Plan through his employer, Sheller-Globe Corporation, for an amoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693050 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693050 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 7, that Ms. Ulery's income had increased since the divorce, and that the court should reconsider the property division \"due to the parties['] current financial situations.\" {¶ 7} While Mr. Ulery's motion was pending, Ms. Ulery filed a motion requesting a qualified domestic relations order to facilitate some aspects of the property division set forth in the divorce decree, which had been delayed by various legal proceedings since the time of the divorce. Mr. Ulery's request that the trial court revisit the property settlement seems to have been based, in part, on the fact that all of the assets had not yet been distributed. The trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ter income than that which he currently realizes. [Cite as Ulery v. Ulery, 2013-Ohio-4951.] It is also significant to note that Mr. Ulery has, at his disposal, signifincant assets appearing in the form of stock, bank accounts, investment accounts, and retirement accounts. Specifically, Mr. Ulery testified that he has stock with Bob Evans with an approximate fair market value of $11,000.00; stock with Huntington Bank with an approximate value of $14,000.00; stock with Boston Capital which was a $12,000.00 initial investment and the current fair market value being unknown. He also has a checking account at Huntingt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s. Ulery's income had increased since the divorce, and that the court should reconsider the property division \"due to the parties['] current financial situations.\" {¶ 7} While Mr. Ulery's motion was pending, Ms. Ulery filed a motion requesting a qualified domestic relations order to facilitate some aspects of the property division set forth in the divorce decree, which had been delayed by various legal proceedings since the time of the divorce. Mr. Ulery's request that the trial court revisit the property settlement seems to have been based, in part, on the fact that all of the assets had not yet been distributed. The trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a347c13a-dc84-40d5-95c6-25fa894708a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693050-2693050","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693050","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: imputation of income in awarding child support, rather than spousal support, but it incorporated this finding into its discussion of spousal support. In his motion for modification, Mr. Ulery compares his post-incarceration income to the imputed income. 3 property division. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Ulery v. Ulery, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2009-CA-12, 2011-Ohio-5211. {¶ 6} In early 2012, Mr. Ulery was released from prison and filed a motion in the trial court for \"modification of spousal support and accompanying property division.\" Mr. Ulery argued that he had not made the income imputed to him ($98,819) since 20"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693473 Extracted reporter citation: 905 N.E.2d 172. Docket: 25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693473 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: which is the retirement benefits of the parties). {¶ 24} In this case, Mr. Papp was awarded his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. Ms. Papp was not given any interest in the pension plan by any means, including by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Mr. Papp now receives a substantial income from that retirement account, and that income is properly considered when determining the appropriateness and amount of spousal support. See, Templeton v. Templeton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18860, 2001 WL 1173340, * 2 (Oct. 5, 2001). {¶ 25} Mr. Papp's Second Assignment of Error is overruled. V. Conclusion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng the motion to terminate, because it erred in finding no change in 2 circumstances. He further contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize that a continued award of spousal support – when his only income consists of his retirement benefits – is precluded by the provision in the divorce decree for the division of property, which awarded him his retirement plan \"free and clear\" of any claims by Ms. Papp. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that the only changes in circumstance that could be a basis for terminating spousal support are the death or remarriage of the obli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed. The court increased Mr. Papp's monthly support obligation to $775. In April, 2011, Mr. Papp moved to terminate his spousal support obligation. Mr. Papp argued that he had retired effective January 1, 2011, and was receiving retirement benefits from his pension plan. He noted that the retirement benefits are his only source of income. He also noted that the divorce decree awarded him his interest in his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. He argued that payment of spousal support constitutes an improper claim by Ms. Papp upon his retirement account, and that Ms. Papp was not entitled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a806977b-64c6-4014-8c08-fba71648451d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693473-2693473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"905 N.E.2d 172","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the retirement benefits of the parties). {¶ 24} In this case, Mr. Papp was awarded his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. Ms. Papp was not given any interest in the pension plan by any means, including by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Mr. Papp now receives a substantial income from that retirement account, and that income is properly considered when determining the appropriateness and amount of spousal support. See, Templeton v. Templeton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18860, 2001 WL 1173340, * 2 (Oct. 5, 2001). {¶ 25} Mr. Papp's Second Assignment of Error is overruled. V. Conclusion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693677 Extracted reporter citation: 912 N.E.2d 1170. Docket: 2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693677 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the first of these agreed judgment entries, Ms. Dickinson was awarded 39 shares of Honeywell stock, valued at $1,735.80. In the same entry, Ms. Dickinson was awarded the sum of $5,542.82 from Mr. Dickinson's Ohio Deferred Compensation account by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The entry left a balance of $7,278.62 in Mr. Dickinson's Deferred Compensation account. {¶ 4} In the second agreed judgment entry of the same date, the parties agreed that \"they have the following determinate marital debts: A. Bank of America $11,161.69; B. Department of Transportation Credit Union $5,028.00.\" A third entry noted that \"it would be equ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: some point, Mr. Dickinson refinanced the mortgage on the marital residence, which he retained. Ms. Dickinson received the sum of $20,668.50 as her share of the equity accrued in 3 the residence. {¶ 6} The matters of spousal support, debt allocation and retirement benefits allocation were tried before the court. In its Judgment Order and Decree of Divorce, the trial court declined to award spousal support to either party. The trial court also ordered Ms. Dickinson to be solely responsible for the debt of $11,161 owed to Bank of America. Finally, the trial court awarded Ms. Dickinson one-half of Mr. Dickinson's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of these agreed judgment entries, Ms. Dickinson was awarded 39 shares of Honeywell stock, valued at $1,735.80. In the same entry, Ms. Dickinson was awarded the sum of $5,542.82 from Mr. Dickinson's Ohio Deferred Compensation account by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The entry left a balance of $7,278.62 in Mr. Dickinson's Deferred Compensation account. {¶ 4} In the second agreed judgment entry of the same date, the parties agreed that \"they have the following determinate marital debts: A. Bank of America $11,161.69; B. Department of Transportation Credit Union $5,028.00.\" A third entry noted that \"it would be equ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e32823a2-a014-4e5c-8d52-95cb305f5708","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693677-2693677","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693677","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.E.2d 1170","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: walking long distances. [Mr. Dickinson] is in good health for the most part. *** [Ms.] Dickinson has no retirement plan. [Mr.] Dickinson is enrolled in PERS through his employer, the State of Ohio. [Ms.] Dickinson will receive one-half (1/2) of the marital portion of [Mr. Dickinson's] retirement. *** The parties were married for 13 years and 4 months at the time this case was heard. *** 6 The parties established a modest standard of living. They owned their own house, have motor vehicles, and took vacations. *** [Mr.] Dickinson received the marital residence by prior agreement. He refinanced the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693686 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693686 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f-Appellee Anthony E. Kohler, Atty. Reg. No. 0032826, 210 North Fountain Avenue, Springfield, Ohio 45504 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ......... GRADY, P.J.: {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a final order of the domestic relations court that modified a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: court that modified a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his place of employment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lations court that modified a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ecf657d-a07d-4a2f-8e35-bafa285583c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693686-2693686","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his place of employment, International Harvester, with an approximate value of $45,000. The wife shall receive one-half of the 401(k) and one-half of the husband's pension benefits for 21 of the husband's 40 years of employment at IH by QDRO fashioned by her attorney and approved by the company. {¶ 3} Benny1 was not represented by counsel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2693885 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693885 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the date of the final hearing herein; divided by the total years of eligibility at the time of defendant's retirement; multiplied by one-half of the total monthly benefit payable at the time of retirement. Mrs. Hawkins's attorney was ordered to draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to effectuate the division of the pension plan in accordance with the divorce decree. The QDRO was filed several years later, in December 2009. {¶ 5} In January 2011, Mr. Hawkins filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, in which he argued that the final decree of divorce did not \"accurately reflect the agreement of the parties\" a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rious defense to the judgment. Argument {¶ 7} Mr. Hawkins raises one assignment of error on appeal, which states: The trial court erred by failing to grant relief pursuant to Civil Rule 60B to correct an improper method of calculating plaintiff's 4 retirement benefits which resulted from an improper recitation in the divorce decree and subsequent QDRO which fails to reflect the agreement set forth in the record at the final hearing in this mater and which continues to provide an award of retirement benefits to plaintiff which is excessive and which deprives plaintiff of his equitable retirement benefits. {¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which overruled his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The judgment at issue was his decree of divorce from Karen Hawkins, particularly the portion related to the distribution of his pension fund. {¶ 2} Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mr. Hawkins's motion for relief from judgment was untimely and failed to raise a meritorious defense, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 3} Phillip and Karen Hawkins were married in 1978 and agreed to the terms of their"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3383dc5-c017-4784-a0d4-3d13d2600258","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2693885-2693885","title":"CourtListener opinion 2693885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f the final hearing herein; divided by the total years of eligibility at the time of defendant's retirement; multiplied by one-half of the total monthly benefit payable at the time of retirement. Mrs. Hawkins's attorney was ordered to draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to effectuate the division of the pension plan in accordance with the divorce decree. The QDRO was filed several years later, in December 2009. {¶ 5} In January 2011, Mr. Hawkins filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, in which he argued that the final decree of divorce did not \"accurately reflect the agreement of the parties\" a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2694029 Extracted reporter citation: 615 N.E.2d 332. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694029 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ntiff, all documents necessary to effectuate his award in her military retirement benefits and it is ORDERED that each of the parties shall have an affirmative duty to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the foregoing. {¶ 4} A MQCO is a form of qualified domestic relations order required by the uniformed military services in order to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a military pension retirement plan. After the divorce decree was filed, Daniel submitted a proposed MQCO to the court. Paragraph six of that proposed MQCO indicated that Daniel was to 4 receive \"an amount equal to 50 percent (50%) of the marital portion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ticipate in several retirement pension plans, which the court divided between them in identical terms. The present appeal concerns the following provisions of the divorce decree dividing Donna's military retirement pension plan: MS. REISING'S MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS As stated, Ms. Reising is a captain in the United States Air Force and began her service in 1985. Therefore, approximately 10 years of her military service accrued prior to the parties' marriage and some portion has accrued after the de facto termination date of the parties' marriage on October 5, 2007. The portion which accrued during the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ried on April 7, 1995. In a contested action for divorce that Daniel1 commenced, the parties stipulated, and the trial court found, that their marriage terminated on October 5, 2007. {¶ 3} The parties had the right to participate in several retirement pension plans, which the court divided between them in identical terms. The present appeal concerns the following provisions of the divorce decree dividing Donna's military retirement pension plan: MS. REISING'S MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS As stated, Ms. Reising is a captain in the United States Air Force and began her service in 1985. Therefore, approxi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f128088-e2cd-471f-a678-144c659b2f8e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694029-2694029","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694029","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: documents necessary to effectuate his award in her military retirement benefits and it is ORDERED that each of the parties shall have an affirmative duty to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the foregoing. {¶ 4} A MQCO is a form of qualified domestic relations order required by the uniformed military services in order to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a military pension retirement plan. After the divorce decree was filed, Daniel submitted a proposed MQCO to the court. Paragraph six of that proposed MQCO indicated that Daniel was to 4 receive \"an amount equal to 50 percent (50%) of the marital portion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2694070 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.E.2d 175. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694070 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen A. Majeski appeals a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections and adopting the decision of the magistrate dismissing her motion to modify the 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In her motion to modify, Kathleen sought an order from the trial court awarding her survivor benefit rights regarding defendant-appellee Michael C. Majeski's retirement benefits. In the alternative, Kathleen requested a modified QDRO awarding her a share of Michael's retirement benefits in a separate interest QDRO which would allow Kathleen to r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f the magistrate dismissing her motion to modify the 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In her motion to modify, Kathleen sought an order from the trial court awarding her survivor benefit rights regarding defendant-appellee Michael C. Majeski's retirement benefits. In the alternative, Kathleen requested a modified QDRO awarding her a share of Michael's retirement benefits in a separate interest QDRO which would allow Kathleen to receive benefits for the remainder of her lifetime. {¶ 2} The magistrate's decision was filed on January 5, 2011. The judgment and entry adopting the decision of the magistrate was file"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r entitlement to a post-retirement survivor benefit. Further, Kathleen asserts that the intent of the parties when the QDRO and final divorce decree were drafted was to entitle her to post-retirement survivor benefits. {¶ 10} It is well established that \"pension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action.\" Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 661 N.E.2d 175 (1996). Regarding the division of pension or retirement benefits, the \"trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23aebe22-2c07-497e-ad0f-f10e3624cc3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694070-2694070","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"661 N.E.2d 175","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: nd the QDRO do not contain inconsistent terms and are not ambiguous. {¶ 14} The stipulated QDRO filed by the parties on January 14, 1998, states in pertinent part: {¶ 15} If the Participant, \"defendant,\" dies prior to the commencement of benefits, the alternate Payee, \"plaintiff,\" shall be a surviving spouse under IRC Sections 401(a) (11) and 417 and shall be entitled to pre-retirement survivor annuity or other survivor annuity provided to the surviving spouse under the plan, but only to the extent of the benefit described above, and only if the Plan so provides. Because husband and wife were married for at le"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2694501 Docket: 23538 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t-Appellant ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} This case concerns the validity and enforceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t's decision and affirm its judgment. 1. Case History {¶ 3} In December 1992, after a 23-year marriage, Richard and Jane were divorced. Incorporated into the dissolution decree was their separation agreement, which included a provision dividing Richard's retirement benefits: {¶ 4} \"10. Pensions; Divided Upon Distribution. At the present time, the Husband is the beneficial owner of vested, non-contingent pension rights in the following pension plan: Federal Government. * * * {¶ 5} \"* * * The parties agree, and the Court may order, that Fiduciary shall pay to Wife a specified portion, namely 50% percent [sic], of any and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: forceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree now, 18 years after it was entered. We agree with the lowe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"974c360a-dffe-4137-a77f-9d57874e03be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694501-2694501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23538 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} This case concerns the validity and enforceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1942a539-0329-48da-8ece-241bd56729df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2694536 Docket: 24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694536 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1942a539-0329-48da-8ece-241bd56729df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1942a539-0329-48da-8ece-241bd56729df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (B), all of which have been denied. Mrs. White has appealed five times to this court. We affirmed in each of those cases, and we do so again here. {¶ 3} On December 24, 2009, Mrs. White filed a motion asking the domestic relations court for an order, and QDRO, allocating her a portion of Mr. White's pension benefits. At the hearing that was held before a magistrate, Mrs. White testified that she believes she is vested in the plan and therefore equally entitled to a portion of the pension benefits. She told the magistrate that she contacted the pension plan administrator, Fidelity Investments, and asked why s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1942a539-0329-48da-8ece-241bd56729df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: judgment.\" Id. (Citation omitted.). It is, as one court has put it, an apparent \"‘blunder[] in execution.'\" Kuehn v. Kuehn (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 245, 247 (Citation omitted.). The divorce decree here is utterly silent concerning Mr. White's pension plan or retirement benefits generally. It is not at all apparent from the record that the domestic relations court inadvertently omitted to divide retirement benefits. Indeed, combing through the entire record, we found no reference whatsoever to retirement benefits. There is simply no evidence that the court intended to divide the retirement benefits but forgot to mention it in t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1942a539-0329-48da-8ece-241bd56729df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2694536-2694536","title":"CourtListener opinion 2694536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ney for Defendant-Appellee ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Vondelere White appeals a domestic relations court's denial of her motion asking the court to allocate her a portion of her former husband's, defendant-appellee Curtis White's, pension benefits. {¶ 2} Mrs. White was granted a divorce in July 1979, when a domestic relations court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. Since then, she has filed numerous pro 2 se motions seeking relief from that judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), all of which have been denied. Mrs. White has appealed five times to this court. We affirmed in each o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696104 Docket: 8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696104 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt part, EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Each party shall retain exclusive ownership, free and clear of any claims of the other, of any interest either party may have in * * * 401-K plans * * * except Wife shall also receive as marital property rights, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, the sum of $51,000.00 together with interest thereon from 04/28/08 of Husband's interest/assets/benefits in the 401-K Plan sponsored by his -2- Case No. 8-13-16 employer, EMI Corp. * * * Wife shall be responsible for all tax liabilities incurred as a result of cashing in her portion of Husband's 401-K. (Doc. 61). {¶4} On July 3, 2008, a Qualif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ainst her former husband, defendant-appellee Gregory Scott Erter (\"Greg\"). Lisa specifically argues that pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated in the parties' final divorce decree she was entitled to receive $51,000.00 plus interest from Greg's 401(K) plan, and that while Greg's 401(K) account was split and she was allocated $51,000.00 on April 28, 2008, by the time she received the money on December 1, 2008, she only received $29,639.02 due to market losses. {¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Lisa and Greg were married June 28, 2003. On June 29, 2007, Lisa filed for divorce, all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: estic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was filed. (Doc. 62). The QDRO was amended twice, once on October 27, 2008, and the second and final time on November 14, 2008. (Docs. 73, 78). The final amended QDRO read, in pertinent part, 2. The amount to be paid to the Alternate Payee [Lisa] from the accounts of the Participant [Greg] in the Plan shall be $51,000.00, plus interest from 04/28/08, such amount hereinafter referred to as the \"Transferred Amount.\" *** 4. * * * If the Transferred Amount is in excess of $3,500.00, the Transferred Amount shall be credited to an account in the name of Alternate Payee in which she shall b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e701c46-fa65-42e7-89a5-8ee0be7c3229","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696104-2696104","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Each party shall retain exclusive ownership, free and clear of any claims of the other, of any interest either party may have in * * * 401-K plans * * * except Wife shall also receive as marital property rights, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, the sum of $51,000.00 together with interest thereon from 04/28/08 of Husband's interest/assets/benefits in the 401-K Plan sponsored by his -2- Case No. 8-13-16 employer, EMI Corp. * * * Wife shall be responsible for all tax liabilities incurred as a result of cashing in her portion of Husband's 401-K. (Doc. 61). {¶4} On July 3, 2008, a Qualif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696122 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Couture. Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: 4-13-13 which will produce. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696122 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: constructive trust over the proceeds of the life insurance policy for the benefit of decedent's children, T. Crites and L. Crites. B. Crites first argues that the equitable remedy of constructive trust violates ERISA, and the parties should have created a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to designate T. Crites and L. Crites beneficiaries of the life insurance policy. Second, B. Crites argues that T. Crites and L. Crites failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that she waived her rights to the insurance proceeds. {¶16} As noted in our prior appeal, the parties agree that the subject life insurance policy was employer-pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: district of the Ohio Court of Appeals has approved of this practice, albeit with little discussion. Blevins v. Estate of Blevins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-554, 2013-Ohio-947, ¶ 16 (trial court appropriately imposed a constructive trust on proceeds of a pension plan paid to decedent's wife for the benefit of decedent's ex-wife). Consequently, we turn to federal court decisions, beginning with the two U.S. Supreme Court cases we cited in our prior opinion. {¶19} In Egelhoff, the decedent had an employer-issued life insurance policy subject to ERISA. 532 U.S. 141. The decedent had named his wife as the benefic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: No. 8) {¶6} On December 19, 2011, the parties filed stipulations of fact with the trial court. (Doc. No. 13). All parties conceded that the life insurance policy was an employer-provided benefit governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). The stipulations also stated that the named beneficiary of the policy was B. Crites. Finally, the stipulations stated that the separation agreement provided that each party released his or her rights to be the beneficiary of any insurance policy issued to the other. The parties then filed their respective motions for summary judgment on January 17, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e779d3db-76d2-4a91-abec-9f239c2690da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696122-2696122","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696122","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-13-13 which will produce","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ive trust over the proceeds of the life insurance policy for the benefit of decedent's children, T. Crites and L. Crites. B. Crites first argues that the equitable remedy of constructive trust violates ERISA, and the parties should have created a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to designate T. Crites and L. Crites beneficiaries of the life insurance policy. Second, B. Crites argues that T. Crites and L. Crites failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that she waived her rights to the insurance proceeds. {¶16} As noted in our prior appeal, the parties agree that the subject life insurance policy was employer-pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696184 Docket: I The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696184 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gation on the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her second objection that the magistrate erred by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) The income of the parties * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ally divide any obligation on the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82a06be0-9aed-40e9-9427-d1a6dd808d17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696184-2696184","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her second objection that the magistrate erred by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696221 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ualified domestic relations order.2 The parties' personal property was appraised, and it 2 We computed this number by adding Daniel's pension, $56,566.46, Daniel's 401(k), $8,719.11, and a life insurance policy, $775.83. (Pl.'s Exs. 12, 13, 14). The actual qualified domestic relations order purporting to divide these amounts equally was not included in the record. -6- Case No. 10-13-05 was valued at $4,535.00. The personal property was distributed in an itemized list, and was not objected to by Christina.3 {¶16} In the division of the parties' vehicles, the parties agreed that Christina would keep the parties' 2000 Chevy Blazer, which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: roperty divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; -12- Case No. 10-13-05 (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: daughter, and a licensed auctioneer who appraised the parties' personal property. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that they were incompatible, and that they owned no real property. In addition, the parties agreed to an equal distribution of Daniel's pension with Minster Machine. The magistrate 1 The Complaint for divorce was filed as \"without children.\" (Doc. 3). The parties actually had three children together, but at the time of the filing of the complaint, the youngest was 26 years old. All three children were emancipated. -2- Case No. 10-13-05 was left to determine the issues of whether spousal suppo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f70db5ca-f6ec-4e56-abec-0cab74942c8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696221-2696221","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id. {¶15} In this case, the marital property to be divided consisted of Daniel's pension, his 401(k), a life insurance policy, three vehicles, and various items of personal property. The retirement funds and the life insurance amounted to $66,061.40, and the parties agreed to split those funds evenly via a qualified domestic relations order.2 The parties' personal property was appraised, and it 2 We computed this number by adding Daniel's pension, $56"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696313 Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: 4-12-21 that concession. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696313 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rced his wife, but never changed the beneficiary. Upon his death, his children tried to recover the proceeds from the policy. The Court held that the plan administrators must follow the plan and could only pay the proceeds to the named beneficiary absent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). {¶6} The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Kennedy v. Plan Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan. However, the husband never changed the beneficiary listed on the pension from the ex-wife to his daughter. The Court unanimously held that absent a valid QDRO, the plan administrator must follow the terms of the plan and make any payment to the designated beneficiary. Id. at 286-87. \"ERISA provides no exception to the plan administrator's duty to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e funds from Anthem. {¶4} On December 19, 2011, the parties filed stipulations of fact with the trial court. All parties conceded that the life insurance policy was an employer provided benefit governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). The stipulations also stated that the named beneficiary of the policy was B. Crites. Finally, the stipulations stated that the separation agreement provided that each party released his or her rights to be the beneficiary of any 1 The parties opposed allowing Anthem to deposit the money with the court because they did not want to have to pay the fees"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aeea4859-899b-4101-941b-4b7df40bd98a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696313-2696313","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-12-21 that concession. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"532 U.S. 141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ife, but never changed the beneficiary. Upon his death, his children tried to recover the proceeds from the policy. The Court held that the plan administrators must follow the plan and could only pay the proceeds to the named beneficiary absent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). {¶6} The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Kennedy v. Plan Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696440 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Beckman. Extracted reporter citation: 599 P.2d 1004. Docket: 10-11-09 the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696440 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Just recently, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a case in which the trial court awarded the spouse \"one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension, if and when it becomes vested,\" was a final divorce decree, even though the QDRO to implement the property division was not yet able to be completed. (Emphasis added.) Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (2007). {¶57} Although Sean's military pension had not yet vested, it was potentially only a few years away from vesting and being a significant asset. A majority of the qualified service for Sean's pension was earned during the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: efendant-appellee, Sean M. Daniel (\"Sean\"). On appeal, Christen contends that the trial court erred by failing to divide certain marital property and debts, specifically part of the student loans obtained by Christen during the marriage and Sean's military retirement benefits. We affirm. {¶2} Christen and Sean were married on January 21, 1995, and three children were born as issue of the marriage, who were 13, 11, and 7 years old at the time of the divorce hearings. (Tr. at 13). The parties separated for a final time in January or March 2008, and Christen filed a complaint for divorce on June 24, 2009. (Id. at 114, 118, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , with the children spending alternating weeks with each parent, was also entered into by agreement. -2- Case No. 10-11-09 The three contested issues were the amount of child support,1 Christen's student loan debt, and Sean's potential unvested military pension. {¶4} The trial court heard testimony from Christen, Sean, and Casey Kearns, an assistant financial aid director at Ohio State University. In addition, numerous exhibits were admitted, consisting primarily of financial records such as student loan documents, income tax records from 2005 through 2008, and numerous receipts and credit card statements."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92340d9d-dce3-47ce-bee1-f1127a28137f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696440-2696440","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696440","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-11-09 the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"599 P.2d 1004","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 02CA008057, 2002-Ohio-4862, ¶ 43. Marital debt has been defined as any debt incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of the parties or for a valid marital purpose. Ketchum v. Ketchum, 7th Dist. No. 2001 CO 60, 2003-Ohio-2559, ¶ 47, citing Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property (2 Ed.1994, Supp.2002) 455, Section 6.29. {¶20} Student loans obtained by one spouse during the marriage may be categorized as marital debt subject to equitable distribution of the court. Harris v. Harris, 5th Dist. No. 2006-CA-00003, 2007-Ohio-1232, ¶ 34; Webb v. Webb, 12th Dist. No. CA97-09-167, *4 (Nov. 30, 1998). Including student loan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696453 Docket: I The Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696453 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: James K. Weaner and James Hitchcock for Appellant Jude T. Aubry for Appellee Case No. 4-12-10 PRESTON, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Larry K. Casteel, appeals the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas' judgment entry denying his motion to issue a new Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") in conformity with the parties' final judgment entry of divorce and denying his motion to terminate spousal support following his retirement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶2} Larry and Joyce A. Casteel, plaintiff-appellee, were married on January 2, 1968. (Doc. No. 1). On July 28, 2005, Joyce filed a complaint for divorce, allegin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the August 25, 2006 value date. {¶25} \"A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award * * * is not subject to future modification by the court.\" R.C. 3105.171(I). However, a trial court can clarify the meaning of an ambiguous division of a retirement plan in a final divorce decree without violating R.C. 3105.171(I). Kelley v. Kelley, 3d Dist. Nos. 4-04-28, 4-04-32, 2005-Ohio-2355, ¶ 16, citing McKinney v. McKinney, 142 Ohio App.3d 604, 608 (2d Dist.2001), citing Weller v. Weller, 115 Ohio App.3d 173, 179 (6th Dist.1996). More specifically, a trial court may modify a QDRO to be consistent with the divorc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . 3). {¶4} On December 11, 2006, a magistrate granted the parties a divorce, divided the parties' property, and ordered, in relevant part, that Larry pay Joyce $2,800.00 per month in spousal support. (Doc. No. 20). Concerning Larry's First Energy defined pension benefit, the magistrate found that: The parties agree that the defined benefit plan should be split equally through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In accordance with -2- Case No. 4-12-10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, the accrued monthly benefit as of April 1, 2006 is $2,789.50 beginning at age 65[], $1,494.75 to each * * *. The appropriate dat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00362c24-cf85-4138-af19-b80692f64cf5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696453-2696453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: } On January 18, 2008, a QDRO for Larry's First Energy defined benefit plan was filed with the trial court, with both parties agreeing to the terms therein. (Doc. No. 48). In pertinent part, the QDRO provides, at paragraph seven, the following: Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit Based on \"Coverture Approach\": This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of Fifty Percent (50.00%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's Benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696505 Extracted reporter citation: 655 N.E.2d 1381. Docket: 5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696505 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 life insurance policy). The remainder of the assets and liabilities, including the home and the credit card debts, were to be assigned to Mark, giving him $42,369.24 in net assets. The marital portion of the Westfield pension was to be equally divided by QDRO. {¶12} As to spousal support, Mark's monthly obligation was to be $1,000 monthly for eleven years, until Valerie turned 65. For the first 36 months, the obligation would be satisfied by Mark paying Valerie $545 per month spousal support and paying the $455 COBRA payments. The magistrate recommended that the trial court retain jurisdiction to modify th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; -9- Case No. 5-11-38 (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: {¶5} Mark also had a 401(k) plan with a current value of $64,192, subject to a $12,000 loan that Mark had taken out to pay expenses during the pendency of the divorce. There were no other significant marital assets,2 although Mark would be eligible for a pension from his employer, Westfield Insurance, with a projected monthly benefit of approximately $1,481 at age 65. At the time of the hearing, Mark was 55 years old, and Valerie was 53. 1 During his testimony, Mark discussed withdrawing this stipulation, saying that if he had to sell the house through a \"short sale\" and did not receive sufficient funds to pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c4e6147-f348-45f2-a8d3-adc19a72610b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696505-2696505","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"655 N.E.2d 1381","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): f the date of the hearing. The proceeds of the sale of the home were to be used to pay off the credit card balances, with Mark assuming responsibility for any balances left owing if the proceeds were not sufficient.1 (Tr., pp. 53-54) {¶5} Mark also had a 401(k) plan with a current value of $64,192, subject to a $12,000 loan that Mark had taken out to pay expenses during the pendency of the divorce. There were no other significant marital assets,2 although Mark would be eligible for a pension from his employer, Westfield Insurance, with a projected monthly benefit of approximately $1,481 at age 65. At the time"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696542 Docket: 17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696542 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er covered under Vernon's Veteran's benefits, which heavily subsidized the cost of her prescriptions. Specifically, Marty testified that her monthly expenses for prescriptions will increase from two to three hundred dollars a year, being covered 1 In the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in this case, the parties agreed to equally divide Vernon's Sprint pension, which produces a total monthly income stream of $987.54. A QDRO is an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce decree dividing retirement or pension assets. More specifically, it is an order that \"creates or recognizes the existence"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t. {¶4} On August 19, 2010, a hearing was held on Marty's motion for temporary spousal support. Marty testified that her only income was $573.00 per month in social security and that Vernon received $5,579.54 per month in disability, social security, and pension benefits. Marty requested the magistrate equally divide the total monthly income between the parties of $6,152.54, so that each party would receive $3,076.27 a month. In order to accomplish this, Vernon -2- Case No. 17-11-28 would have to pay Marty $2,503.27 a month in temporary spousal support in addition to the $573.00 a month she received in socia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96e53c97-c21b-4a95-8833-e9f655c7b062","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696542-2696542","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): National Bank CD $114,527.00 Insurance Policy National Guard Life 6,320.00 5/3 Bank IRA $48,053.00 Policy National Guard Life $3,164.00 Golf Cart $2,500.00 Policy 1st National Account $1,973.00 House at Dorothy Love $151,443.00 5/3 Account $58,224.00 401K $268,878.00 2009 Impala $12,610.00 Total $386,994.00 Total $467,849.00 -9- Case No. 17-11-28 In order to equalize the value of the marital assets received by each party in the divorce, Marty paid Vernon the sum of $40,418.00 from the liquid assets in her column. The parties agree that the distribution of the marital assets is fair and equitable. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdafc7e6-22ab-472e-bbf1-99af4cbdf0ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"9-11-32 by this","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696578 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: 9-11-32 by this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696578 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdafc7e6-22ab-472e-bbf1-99af4cbdf0ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"9-11-32 by this","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdafc7e6-22ab-472e-bbf1-99af4cbdf0ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"9-11-32 by this","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nted exhibits for the family court to consider in dividing their marital and separate property. {¶4} On August 26, 2010, the family court filed its judgment entry in this matter. The court ordered that the parties equally divide their retirement funds by QDRO (Amanda had one, with STRS, and David had two, with STRS and PERS). The court awarded the marital home to David and ordered that he be responsible for the mortgage debt thereon. The court further awarded both of the parties the vehicles each had in their respective possession, including any debt on the vehicle in his or her possession. Amanda was ordere"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdafc7e6-22ab-472e-bbf1-99af4cbdf0ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696578-2696578","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"9-11-32 by this","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: : Kevin P. Collins for Appellant Keith A. Kochheiser for Appellee Case No. 9-11-32 WILLAMOWSKI, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, David W. Collins (\"David\"), appeals the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, finalizing the property division and other issues in his divorce from Plaintiff- Appellee, Amanda M. Collins, nka Amanda M. Wood (\"Amanda\"). On appeal, David contends that the family court erred in calculating his salary for child support purposes; that it erred in valuing one of the vehicles; and that the property division was unequal and inequitable. For the reasons set forth below,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696666 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Docket: I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696666 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ly during the marriage. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 159-63); (P's Ex. 35). Therefore, all of the funds in the Minster Machine Co. Pension were marital assets. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 178. To divide the parties' retirement assets, the trial court decided to issue a QDRO ordering that a portion -9- Case No. 10-11-08 of John's retirement benefits be paid from his T. Rowe Price IRA account to Virginia upon the earliest of: (1) John's death; (2) John's retirement; (3) John's termination from the plan's sponsor and its affiliates; (4) Virginia's consent to the lump sum distribution; or (5) Virginia's request to roll the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: {¶18} In his third assignment of error, John argues that the trial court erred in dividing the parties' retirement funds by using the future value of John's pension plan, instead of the pension plan's present-day value. {¶19} The division of a pension or retirement benefit must be left to the trial court's broad discretion. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 559 N.E.2d 1292. \"The trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the -7- Case No. 10-11-08 nature, terms and conditions of the pension plan, and the reasonablene"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: inal divorce hearing, John III was a minor but Constance was not. (Id. at 33, 123). {¶3} On August 9, 2010, the matter came on for final hearing. (Doc. No. 25). John had not yet provided account statements/records reflecting the present- day value of his pension plan, IRA, and 401(k) through discovery, so the parties stipulated at the final hearing that John would supplement the record with those account statements/records. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 195); (Doc. No. 30). {¶4} On August 25, 2010, John filed a supplement to the record with statements from his ITW Savings and Investment Plan, T. Rowe Price IRA account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3edc5e41-666a-41a6-903f-c2a8386582f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696666-2696666","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696666","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ohn III was a minor but Constance was not. (Id. at 33, 123). {¶3} On August 9, 2010, the matter came on for final hearing. (Doc. No. 25). John had not yet provided account statements/records reflecting the present- day value of his pension plan, IRA, and 401(k) through discovery, so the parties stipulated at the final hearing that John would supplement the record with those account statements/records. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 195); (Doc. No. 30). {¶4} On August 25, 2010, John filed a supplement to the record with statements from his ITW Savings and Investment Plan, T. Rowe Price IRA account, and Minster Machine"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7110e97-6d22-40fe-b932-fb8533c6cf11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696725","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of exhibits for the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 846","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2696725 Extracted reporter citation: 523 N.E.2d 846. Docket: of exhibits for the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696725 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7110e97-6d22-40fe-b932-fb8533c6cf11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696725","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of exhibits for the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 846","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7110e97-6d22-40fe-b932-fb8533c6cf11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696725","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of exhibits for the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 846","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: roperty. {¶4} On August 26, 2010, the trial court filed its judgment entry in this matter. The court ordered that the parties equally divide their retirement funds (Amanda had one and David had two), which had all been accumulated during the marriage, by QDRO and to equally share any costs incurred to complete this division. The trial court awarded the marital home to David and ordered that he be responsible for the mortgage debt thereon. The trial court further awarded both of the parties the vehicles each had in their respective possession, including any debt on the vehicle in his or her possession. The co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7110e97-6d22-40fe-b932-fb8533c6cf11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2696725-2696725","title":"CourtListener opinion 2696725","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of exhibits for the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 846","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: RROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DAVID BY DETERMINING AMANDA'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION TO BE $123.73 PER MONTH. DAVID'S THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DAVID BY ORDERING EACH OF THE PARTIES' THREE RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BY DIVISION OF PROPERTY ORDERS. DAVID'S FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO DAVID'S PREJUDICE AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY VALUING AMANDA'S STRS AS OF JUNE 30, 2009. DAVID'S FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO DAVID'S PREJUDICE AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE 2000 FO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59ac9798-4bdc-4e9f-8767-37241315f9d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697121","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2697121 Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Docket: I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697121 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59ac9798-4bdc-4e9f-8767-37241315f9d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697121","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59ac9798-4bdc-4e9f-8767-37241315f9d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697121","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: o. 8-08-12 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ORDERING THE $20,128.90 IN THE MARITAL ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE TO BE AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF FOR FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT AND FOR NOT ORDERING A QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RECEIVE THE $20,128.90. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. VI THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND WENT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF MORE SPOUSAL SUPPORT FOR LONGER DURATION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. VII THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT RENDERING ORDERS ON THE $15,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59ac9798-4bdc-4e9f-8767-37241315f9d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697121-2697121","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697121","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ERTY SOLD. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND WENT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINING THE BALANCE SHEET AND CLEARLY INDICATING DEADLINES ON HOW APPELLANT IS TO RECEIVE HER MARITAL PORTION AND AWARDS. -3- Case No. 8-08-12 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ORDERING THE $20,128.90 IN THE MARITAL ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE TO BE AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF FOR FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT AND FOR NOT ORDERING A QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RECEIVE THE $20,128.90. ASSIG"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4560d5d8-5b43-462e-ad6c-3f3ccb8c19a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2697627 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697627 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4560d5d8-5b43-462e-ad6c-3f3ccb8c19a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4560d5d8-5b43-462e-ad6c-3f3ccb8c19a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: she had not actually withdrawn her complaint for divorce. {¶5} Despite the original divorce decree granting Young the proceeds of Appellant's pension, despite allegedly learning in 1995 that Young had indeed divorced him, and despite attempting to amend a qualified domestic relations order Lawrence App. No. 11CA19 3 that issued in July 2010 Appellant waited until April 22, 2011 to file a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), requesting the court vacate its judgment entry, presumably the divorce decree from 1989. Appellant's basis for his motion was Young had committed fraud and perjury by listing an inaccurate address for Appellant, fabricat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4560d5d8-5b43-462e-ad6c-3f3ccb8c19a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: wer the complaint for divorce, the trial court entered its divorce decree. The decree awarded all marital assets to Young, including the marital debt. In exchange for Young having to pay the marital debts, the court awarded her the proceeds of Appellant's pension and his two life insurance policies. {¶4} Appellant claims Young visited him in 1989 while he was incarcerated and told him she had \"put a stop to the divorce.\" Appellant claims in 1995 he attempted to add Young to his list of approved visitors while he was still incarcerated, but prison staff informed him it was improper to list Young as his \"wife\" b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4560d5d8-5b43-462e-ad6c-3f3ccb8c19a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697627-2697627","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t actually withdrawn her complaint for divorce. {¶5} Despite the original divorce decree granting Young the proceeds of Appellant's pension, despite allegedly learning in 1995 that Young had indeed divorced him, and despite attempting to amend a qualified domestic relations order Lawrence App. No. 11CA19 3 that issued in July 2010 Appellant waited until April 22, 2011 to file a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), requesting the court vacate its judgment entry, presumably the divorce decree from 1989. Appellant's basis for his motion was Young had committed fraud and perjury by listing an inaccurate address for Appellant, fabricat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2697842 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10CA15 5 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: __ APPEARANCES: Mark J. Donatelli, Xenia, Ohio, for Della Patten.1 ______________________________________________________________________ Per Curiam {¶1} Della Patten appeals after the trial court vacated the original qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that distributed the pension plan benefits of her former husband, Jerry Patten. Some fifteen years after their divorce, Mr. Patten petitioned the court to \"correct\" the QDRO after he realized it designated Della Patten the surviving spouse beneficiary of his pension. As a result, Ms. Patten, rather than his current wife, would receive his entire pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or divorce to end their marriage of 16 years. The referee recommended granting a divorce and making an equitable distribution of their marital property, which included Mr. Patten's pension plan with Ford Motor Co. The referee found \"that [Mr. Patten] has a retirement benefit, which by agreement of the parties[,] [Ms. Patten] is entitled to $7,200.00 of that benefit at the present time or 24% of his retirement.\" The referee recommended \"the Court order that [Ms. Patten] be entitled to receive from the husbands [sic] pension, 24% of whatever his pension is at the time he retires.\" {¶5} In mid 1994, the trial court overruled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: natelli, Xenia, Ohio, for Della Patten.1 ______________________________________________________________________ Per Curiam {¶1} Della Patten appeals after the trial court vacated the original qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that distributed the pension plan benefits of her former husband, Jerry Patten. Some fifteen years after their divorce, Mr. Patten petitioned the court to \"correct\" the QDRO after he realized it designated Della Patten the surviving spouse beneficiary of his pension. As a result, Ms. Patten, rather than his current wife, would receive his entire pension benefit if he should predece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffa5ad6-983d-42fb-8ca1-bb96c644addb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697842-2697842","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697842","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 5 THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: this case was set forth in the final decree, adopted by the trial court in June 1994. The November 1994 QDRO implemented the property distribution of Mr. Patten's Ford pension. {¶16} A QDRO is an \"an order that ‘creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'\" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, 922 N.E.2d 214 (per curiam), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2697902 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: 10CA15 9 inherent power of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697902 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: __________________________ McFarland, J.: {¶1} Appellant, William Blaine, appeals the trial court's decision that overruled his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. He asserts that he is entitled to relief from the court's judgment approving the QDRO, because the QDRO is inconsistent with the terms of the parties' separation agreement that the court incorporated into its dissolution decree. Because appellant alleged that the QDRO is inconsistent with the dissolution decree, Civ.R. 60(B) does not apply. Instead, if the QDRO conflicts with the decree, then the trial court possessed inherent authority"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rdingly, we overrule appellant's two assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. I. FACTS {¶2} On November 26, 2008, the parties filed a petition for dissolution of marriage accompanied with a separation agreement. With regards to the retirement benefits, the parties' separation agreement states: \"The parties have no retirement plans other than a 401(k) account with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54.\" The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appella"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ccount with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54.\" The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appellant's pension is listed as $170,501.08. On February 2, 2009, the trial court entered a dissolution decree that incorporated the parties' separation agreement. Jackson App. No. 10CA15 3 {¶3} On May 21, 2009, the court entered a QDRO. Paragraph seven of the QDRO states: \"Amount of Assignment: This Order assigns to [appellee] a portion of [appellant's] Total Accoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493aea46-72aa-4cad-9db5-5a0efd871611","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697902-2697902","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697902","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA15 9 inherent power of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2} On November 26, 2008, the parties filed a petition for dissolution of marriage accompanied with a separation agreement. With regards to the retirement benefits, the parties' separation agreement states: \"The parties have no retirement plans other than a 401(k) account with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54.\" The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appellant's pension is listed as $170,501.08. On February 2, 2009, the trial court entered a dissolution decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2697978 Extracted reporter citation: 723 N.E.2d 1117. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697978 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e and \"Court Order Acceptable 1 for Processing under the Civil Service Retirement System\" (COAP). {¶ 2} James A. Pontious, defendant below and appellee herein, raises the following assignment of error for review: 1 A \"COAP\" is essentially the same as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 5 CFR 838.103; Stare v. Stare, Licking App. No. 03CA109, 2004-Ohio-4770, at ¶19. ROSS, 10CA3157 2 \"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RELIEF PURSUANT TO HIS POST-DECREE MOTION.\" {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on Febr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on February 5, 2008. {¶ 4} At the final divorce hearing, appellee's counsel recited the parties' agreement with respect to appellant's retirement benefits: \"The temporary order of support will continue as previously Ordered by this Court until such time as the defendant goes into active retirement, which is expected to occur in the near future, at which time that pension * * * will be divided equally. He does have a pension, and a T.S.P through his employment with the V.A., and that that would, is all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: respect to appellant's retirement benefits: \"The temporary order of support will continue as previously Ordered by this Court until such time as the defendant goes into active retirement, which is expected to occur in the near future, at which time that pension * * * will be divided equally. He does have a pension, and a T.S.P through his employment with the V.A., and that that would, is all marital at this time, is that she would receive a marital portion, [sic] today's date being the ending date of the marriage.\" Appellant and his counsel indicated to the court that appellee's counsel accurately recited the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9a25668-f295-4082-87e2-b5f7b5b67e66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2697978-2697978","title":"CourtListener opinion 2697978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"723 N.E.2d 1117","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt Order Acceptable 1 for Processing under the Civil Service Retirement System\" (COAP). {¶ 2} James A. Pontious, defendant below and appellee herein, raises the following assignment of error for review: 1 A \"COAP\" is essentially the same as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 5 CFR 838.103; Stare v. Stare, Licking App. No. 03CA109, 2004-Ohio-4770, at ¶19. ROSS, 10CA3157 2 \"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RELIEF PURSUANT TO HIS POST-DECREE MOTION.\" {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on Febr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698043 Docket: reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698043 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Wendy contends that the trial court erred by indicating that Wendy was to receive 50% of the value of Paul's interest in the Globe Metallurgical pension plan. The basis of her argument is that the trial court should have divided \"the retirement plan via a qualified domestic relations order that deferred the actual division until the participant spouse begins collecting on the pension[.]\" Wendy's Brief at 21. But the docket reflects that the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order, and Wendy states in her brief \"one [qualified domestic relations order] has been issued to divide this benefit, the Plan Administrator has rejec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; * * * (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties; (i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties; (j) The contribution of each party to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: financial misconduct; (3) failing to articulate a factual basis for the amount of spousal support; (4) failing to award spousal support for an indefinite time period; (5) failing to consider the offset of Wendy's Social Security benefits against her public pension; and (6) improperly dividing Paul's qualified pension plan. {¶2} Having reviewed the record, we find that there is ample evidence to support each of the trial court's findings of fact and that none of the trial court's conclusions of Washington App. No. 10CA8 2 law constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a57bf05e-866a-440e-a431-665ca06152fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698043-2698043","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698043","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): or reasons other than Paul's ability to pay. Washington App. No. 10CA8 6 substantial charges on the credit cards. Trial Transcript at 94; Paul's Exhibit 3. Paul further testified that, several times, he took out a home mortgage, borrowed money against his 401K, and cashed out his life insurance policy in order to pay credit card bills. Trial Transcript at 89-96. At trial, Wendy's counsel made the point several times that Paul did not claim the expenses were frivolous, but rather the fact that those expenses were put on a credit card. Trial Transcript at 129, 137-42. Even accepting that these expenses were not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735e1-7066-4443-82bf-d626838a0e7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698120 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698120 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735e1-7066-4443-82bf-d626838a0e7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735e1-7066-4443-82bf-d626838a0e7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: peal. {¶3}. On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a complaint for divorce in the trial court. Appellee filed an answer on May 6, 2010. {¶4}. The case proceeded to a trial on June 18, 2012. The court first heard the testimony of pension expert Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants in Medina Ohio, followed by the testimony of appellant and appellee. {¶5}. The basic economic situation of the parties herein is not in factual dispute. Appellee is employed by Mt. Carmel Health Systems as a registered ER nurse. Appellant commenced employment in 1985 with the Ohio Department of Health and has been a participant in the Ohio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735e1-7066-4443-82bf-d626838a0e7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698120-2698120","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: commencement of the present appeal. {¶3}. On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a complaint for divorce in the trial court. Appellee filed an answer on May 6, 2010. {¶4}. The case proceeded to a trial on June 18, 2012. The court first heard the testimony of pension expert Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants in Medina Ohio, followed by the testimony of appellant and appellee. {¶5}. The basic economic situation of the parties herein is not in factual dispute. Appellee is employed by Mt. Carmel Health Systems as a registered ER nurse. Appellant commenced employment in 1985 with the Ohio Department of Health and has bee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a3d26d3-19d6-4f98-86bf-a5aed5672dcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698383 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 64. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698383 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a3d26d3-19d6-4f98-86bf-a5aed5672dcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a3d26d3-19d6-4f98-86bf-a5aed5672dcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ng that appellee was in contempt. Appellant, in his motion, alleged that appellee had violated three provisions of the trial court's November 12, 2009 Judgment Entry. Appellant alleged, in part, that appellee had violated such order by failing to prepare a QDRO to secure appellant's marital portion of her retirement benefits and by failing to pay him $1,500.00 within one year of the date of the order. A hearing assignment notice was filed on July 24, 2013 stating that an oral hearing on appellant's motion was scheduled for September 30, 2013. The notice stated that failure to appear may result in dismissal. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a3d26d3-19d6-4f98-86bf-a5aed5672dcd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698383-2698383","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698383","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tempt. Appellant, in his motion, alleged that appellee had violated three provisions of the trial court's November 12, 2009 Judgment Entry. Appellant alleged, in part, that appellee had violated such order by failing to prepare a QDRO to secure appellant's marital portion of her retirement benefits and by failing to pay him $1,500.00 within one year of the date of the order. A hearing assignment notice was filed on July 24, 2013 stating that an oral hearing on appellant's motion was scheduled for September 30, 2013. The notice stated that failure to appear may result in dismissal. The notice was sent to appellant at Mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698639 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698639 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: milies' living expenses. {¶29} The trial court equally divided the 401(K), IRA, and life insurance cash value between Husband and Wife. In order to accomplish an equal division, the trial court found Husband should receive $6,732.70 of Wife's 401(K) via a QDRO. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2013 AP 04 0018 9 {¶30} R.C. 3105.171(B) requires the trial court to determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. \"In either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide the marital and separate property equitably between the spouses * * *.\" R.C. 3105.171(B). The Rev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2013 AP 04 0018 6 (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): review. The trial court remanded the matter to the magistrate. {¶12} On January 31, 2013, the magistrate issued her decision. Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate denied both parties' requests for spousal support; awarded Husband $6,732.70 from Wife's 401(K) plan; awarded Husband certain personal property in possession of Wife; made Wife responsible for the debt consolidation loan; and adopted Husband's shared parenting plan naming Husband as the primary residential parent. The parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the recommendations of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6c4ece0-4461-48a4-8236-7160c84b9eea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698639-2698639","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: manner the court determines equitable.\" R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). The court may make a distributive award to facilitate, effectuate, or supplement a division of marital property. R.C. 3105.171(E)(1). {¶31} Trial courts have \"broad discretion to determine what property division is equitable in a divorce proceeding.\" Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. A trial court's decision allocating marital property and debt will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. \"Abuse of discretion\" connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698834 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698834 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s. Exhibits A – J were attached in support of the appellee's filings (Child Support Computation Worksheet, HUD-1 Settlement Statement, Division of Household Items, Vehicles and Personal Property, Statement of Participation in Christian Church Pension Plan, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, insurance policies annual statements, debts, appellee's expenses, and division of property and liabilities). The certificate of service filed by appellee states a file-stamped copy of appellee's statement of case, marital balance sheets, and proposed division of assets and liabilities was served on appellant by regular mail on October 26, 2012. {¶5}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: {¶9} R.C. 3105.171(F)(9) provides as follows: (F) In making a division of martial property and in determining whether to make and the amount of any distributive award under this section, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (9) Any retirement benefits of the spouses, excluding the social security benefits of a spouse, except as may be relevant for purposes of dividing a public pension * * *. {¶10} In this case, both appellee and appellant have contributed into social security and appellant has a private retirement pension. There is no evidence that either party contributed to a public pension. P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: for the rest of her life, and must be tested regularly for certain cancers and sexually transmitted diseases. {¶3} During the marriage, appellant was the assistant minister at North Terrace Church of Christ. He was a participant in the Christian Churches Pension Plan and currently has two life insurance policies. Appellant is no longer employed and receives social security disability of $1,600.00 per month. Appellant currently resides with his parents. Appellee is employed by North Terrace Church of Christ and pays into social security. B.H. receives $819.00 per month as a dependency allotment from social secu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46f174eb-c1a3-45bc-82d8-e9d74d9325dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698834-2698834","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s A – J were attached in support of the appellee's filings (Child Support Computation Worksheet, HUD-1 Settlement Statement, Division of Household Items, Vehicles and Personal Property, Statement of Participation in Christian Church Pension Plan, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, insurance policies annual statements, debts, appellee's expenses, and division of property and liabilities). The certificate of service filed by appellee states a file-stamped copy of appellee's statement of case, marital balance sheets, and proposed division of assets and liabilities was served on appellant by regular mail on October 26, 2012. {¶5}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698871 Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.E.2d 515. Docket: 12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698871 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the divorce, Decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by the State Teacher Retirement System of Ohio (\"STRS\"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} \"(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n. Appellee and Decedent were divorced via Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed November 26, 1997. The Decree incorporated this Separation Agreement reached by Appellee and Decedent. At the time of the divorce, Decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by the State Teacher Retirement System of Ohio (\"STRS\"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} \"(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Def"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: \"STRS\"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} \"(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. {¶5} \"(b) Said payments from the STRS shall be de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69398c36-8888-41c0-b7d6-825f8773cbf9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698871-2698871","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: her Retirement System of Ohio (\"STRS\"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} \"(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. {¶5} \"(b) Said payments f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1e24540-6444-4761-86db-9ab612005bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698949","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2698949 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698949 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1e24540-6444-4761-86db-9ab612005bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698949","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1e24540-6444-4761-86db-9ab612005bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698949","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of $10,000.00 over a period of 24 months. If Defendant can pay it sooner he may and is encouraged to. At the least, [Defendant] shall pay $5,000 in 12 months. Plaintiff shall also receive the amount of $25,000.00 from the Defendant's 401(K) to be by a QDRO. {¶5} During the marriage, Wife applied for private student loans to fund her college and graduate education. In the settlement agreement, Wife agreed to be responsible for her student loan debt. {¶6} The settlement agreement was filed with the court on July 20, 2011. {¶7} After the July 14, 2011 hearing, Wife realized she could not immediately with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1e24540-6444-4761-86db-9ab612005bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698949","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): pay to wife the sum of $10,000.00 over a period of 24 months. If Defendant can pay it sooner he may and is encouraged to. At the least, [Defendant] shall pay $5,000 in 12 months. Plaintiff shall also receive the amount of $25,000.00 from the Defendant's 401(K) to be by a QDRO. {¶5} During the marriage, Wife applied for private student loans to fund her college and graduate education. In the settlement agreement, Wife agreed to be responsible for her student loan debt. {¶6} The settlement agreement was filed with the court on July 20, 2011. {¶7} After the July 14, 2011 hearing, Wife realized she could not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1e24540-6444-4761-86db-9ab612005bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2698949-2698949","title":"CourtListener opinion 2698949","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: aring, Wife realized she could not immediately withdraw the $25,000 from Husband's 401(K) plan. Husband is enrolled in an employee benefits plan entitled the \"B Plan\" at his place of employment. The \"B Plan\" does not permit a withdrawal from the fund by an alternate payee until the employee's retirement or separation from employment. Based on this discovery, Wife filed a Motion to Set Aside Settlement and/or Vacate Judgment on September 7, 2011. In the motion, she alleged the settlement agreement should be set aside due to accident, misrepresentation, or fraud. During the settlement negotiations, it was Wife's understan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61b209b0-cea6-4c1c-b731-12f5f2961052","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012CA00041 13","extracted_reporter_citation":"480 N.E.2d 1112","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699180 Extracted reporter citation: 480 N.E.2d 1112. Docket: 2012CA00041 13. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699180 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61b209b0-cea6-4c1c-b731-12f5f2961052","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012CA00041 13","extracted_reporter_citation":"480 N.E.2d 1112","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61b209b0-cea6-4c1c-b731-12f5f2961052","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012CA00041 13","extracted_reporter_citation":"480 N.E.2d 1112","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d accumulated some value in the ESOP. Husband stated he thought there was \"probably a few thousand dollars\", \"[l]ess than $10,000 at the time\" in the accounts. Subsequently, when counsel for Wife presented Husband with evidence from Pension Evaluators and QDRO Consultants, Husband conceded the ESOP was all marital. December 27, 2011 Trial Transcript at 51. {¶35} Based upon Husband's own admission, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the ESOP was a marital asset. Furthermore, Husband failed to definitely establish the amount of his pre-marital contribution to the ESOP. {¶36}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61b209b0-cea6-4c1c-b731-12f5f2961052","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012CA00041 13","extracted_reporter_citation":"480 N.E.2d 1112","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e of the marriage, he had accumulated some value in the ESOP. Husband stated he thought there was \"probably a few thousand dollars\", \"[l]ess than $10,000 at the time\" in the accounts. Subsequently, when counsel for Wife presented Husband with evidence from Pension Evaluators and QDRO Consultants, Husband conceded the ESOP was all marital. December 27, 2011 Trial Transcript at 51. {¶35} Based upon Husband's own admission, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the ESOP was a marital asset. Furthermore, Husband failed to definitely establish the amount of his pre-marital contribution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61b209b0-cea6-4c1c-b731-12f5f2961052","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699180-2699180","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012CA00041 13","extracted_reporter_citation":"480 N.E.2d 1112","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 9} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising as error: {¶10} \"I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DIVIDING THE MARITAL PROPERTY. {¶11} \"II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING DE FACTO SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF A PROPERTY DIVISION. {¶12} \"III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CALCULATING THE DE FACTO AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT. {¶13} \"IV. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT ALL OF THE ASHLAND HERCULES LEVERAGED EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN WAS A MARITAL ASSET. {¶14} \"V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT ALL OF THE FUNDS I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699338 Extracted reporter citation: 471 N.E.2d 785. Docket: 11 CAF 11 0102 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699338 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On May 10, 2010, the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ad Dublin, Ohio 43016 Columbus, Ohio 43235 Delaware County, Case No. 11 CAF 11 0102 2 Wise, J. {¶1} Appellant Gerald A. Flint appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, which approved certain proposed QDROs affecting appellant's retirement plans in a post-decree contempt action initiated by Appellee Denise L. Flint, appellant's former spouse. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. {¶2} Appellant Gerald and Appellee Denise were married on July 31, 1982. Two children, presently emancipated, were born of the marriage. Appellee filed a complaint for divorce on January 16, 2008,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issuance of the QDROs. The trial court thereupon issued a show cause o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fac90bc-00d4-4005-87a8-368c7ed8f3bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699338-2699338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11 CAF 11 0102 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"471 N.E.2d 785","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: elaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On May 10, 2010, the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e57de51f-3438-4048-a566-5b5e4106a6e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CAF110109 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"574 N.E.2d 457","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699541 Extracted reporter citation: 574 N.E.2d 457. Docket: 11CAF110109 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e57de51f-3438-4048-a566-5b5e4106a6e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CAF110109 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"574 N.E.2d 457","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e57de51f-3438-4048-a566-5b5e4106a6e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CAF110109 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"574 N.E.2d 457","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . The magistrate issued a shared parenting plan. The magistrate further ordered Husband to pay Wife's attorney fees. {¶6} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision relative to the award of attorney fees; the cash property award rather than the QDRO to which the parties had agreed; his continued payment of Wife's automobile debt; and the shared parenting plan. Wife filed a memorandum contra. The parties worked with the guardian ad litem and resolved the shared parenting plan issues. An Agreed Shared Parenting Order was filed February 4, 2011. {¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 26, 2011, the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e57de51f-3438-4048-a566-5b5e4106a6e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699541-2699541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CAF110109 8","extracted_reporter_citation":"574 N.E.2d 457","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: sion filed June 7, 2010, the magistrate ordered the parties be granted a divorce. The magistrate found the parties had reached an agreement settling \"all financial and property issues\" pursuant to which Husband would pay Wife \"$65,000 as satisfaction of an equitable distribution of marital assets and debts.\" Magistrate's June 7, 2010 Decision at para. 25. The magistrate also found, prior to the marriage, Wife owned real property located at 396 Shandon Court, Powell, Ohio, which became rental property after the marriage. Sometime in April or May, 2008, the parties discovered the exiting tenants had \"trashed\" the residence. Husba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699615 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The Separation Agreement that was filed the same date stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: \"Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive ½ of IBEW 401K by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" {¶3} On August 14, 2006, appellant also filed a Financial Statement Affidavit in which she listed appellee's IBEW 401K as having a value of $32,118.60. Appellee, on October 2, 2006, filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had reviewed the Financial Statement Affidavit that was filed with the trial court and found it to be accurate. A Decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 10–Ohio–540, ¶ 12, citing In re Mittas, 5th Dist. No. 1994CA00053, 1994 WL 477799 (Aug. 6, 1994). {¶15} In the case sub judice, appellant maintains that appellee should have been held in contempt because she was denied her one-half interest in appellee's retirement accounts, thereby denying appellant her fair share of the marital property. Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00091 6 Appellant contends that paragraph 11 of the parties' Separation Agreement entitled her to the same. {¶16} As is stated above, the Separation Agreement that was incorporated into the October 3, 2006 Decree stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: \"H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ent was filed on October 3, 2006. {¶4} After problems arose involving the QDRO, a hearing regarding clarification of the QDRO was scheduled for June 17, 2010. At the hearing, a representative of IBEW Local 540 Security Plan clarified that appellee's IBEW pension plan was a Security Plan pension and that a separate 401(K) plan existed, but had no value. Appellee acknowledged that the pension accrued during the marriage had an approximate value of $30,000.00. Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00091 3 {¶5} The trial court, as memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on June 21, 2010, stated, in relevant part, as f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d35ea3b-4b9f-42c5-b94b-b5361a01a469","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699615-2699615","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699615","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): lant Valerie Woronka and appellee William Woronka filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The Separation Agreement that was filed the same date stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: \"Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive ½ of IBEW 401K by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" {¶3} On August 14, 2006, appellant also filed a Financial Statement Affidavit in which she listed appellee's IBEW 401K as having a value of $32,118.60. Appellee, on October 2, 2006, filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had reviewed the Financial Statement Affidavit that was filed with th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699653 Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: of years the appellant participated. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699653 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ry Decree of Divorce was filed on September 15, 2000. The Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce, which indicated that appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} \"12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce, which indicated that appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} \"12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall be divided into two shares. The Wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: at appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} \"12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall be divided into two shares. The Wife's share shall equal the following fractional"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68792b97-fd8b-4d64-b5f2-e94b0e294717","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699653-2699653","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699653","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years the appellant participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: llant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred by ordering that all of appellant's military retirement was required to be apportioned. Appellant maintains that the Divorce Decree ordered that appellant's Navy Reserve pension and ERISA qualified plans be divided and did not include appellant's active duty Navy retirement. Delaware County App. Case No. 11CAF050039 8 {¶ 33} As noted by the court in Hasselback v. Hasselback, 10th Dist. No. 06AP- 776, 2007-Ohio-762. \"The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (\"USFSPA\") was passed by Congress in 1982, and gives state courts the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2699910 Extracted reporter citation: 748 N.E.2d 528. Docket: used. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699910 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ty included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} \"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory] shall be provided.\" {¶5} Subsequent to the parties' divorce, a delay ensued concerning the preparation and filing of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Specifically, appellant's attorney believed that the entr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: brarian at Kenmore High School, where she earns a pension through the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS). {¶3} The Final Decree of Divorce divided the couple's property; the division of property included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} \"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: divorced by a judgment entry filed September 23, 2003. The Judgment Entry of Divorce approved and incorporated the Magistrate Decision filed with the court on June 27, 2003. Appellee was, and still is, a librarian at Kenmore High School, where she earns a pension through the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS). {¶3} The Final Decree of Divorce divided the couple's property; the division of property included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} \"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73c385f6-eb29-425a-b83a-74424ec6f39a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2699910-2699910","title":"CourtListener opinion 2699910","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"used","extracted_reporter_citation":"748 N.E.2d 528","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} \"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory] shall be provided.\" {¶5} Subsequent to the parties' divorce, a delay ensued concerning the preparation and filing of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Specifically, appellant's attorney believed that the entr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2700098 Extracted reporter citation: 472 N.E.2d 328. Docket: 10 CA 115 12. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700098 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: laintiff [Appellee] shall be entitled to receive the sum of $147,959 from one or more of Defendant's [Appellant's] retirement holdings and shall retain same free and clear of any claim of Defendant. Plaintiff shall prepare and the parties shall execute any QDRO(s) and/or rollover forms necessary to accomplish this transfer. Defendant shall retain, free and clear of any claim of Plaintiff, any remaining retirement funds held in his name.\" Divorce Decree at 4. {¶5} Although the figure used in Paragraph 9 was $147,959.00, the record indicates that due to changes in the stock market during some of the times in qu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: laim of Plaintiff, any remaining retirement funds held in his name.\" Divorce Decree at 4. {¶5} Although the figure used in Paragraph 9 was $147,959.00, the record indicates that due to changes in the stock market during some of the times in question, the retirement accounts at issue varied in combined value as follows: Licking County, Case No. 10 CA 115 3 {¶6} December 31, 2007: $147,950.64 {¶7} December 31, 2008: $180,061.02 {¶8} March 31, 2009: $ 99,653.72 {¶9} As further discussed infra, a QDRO was not journalized until April 30, 2009, at which time the combined account balance had dropped well below the $147,95"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): l 29, 2008, appellant and appellee were granted a divorce by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. {¶3} At the time of the divorce, appellant had built up several retirement accounts, including a profit sharing plan and a 401(K) plan. The 2008 divorce decree included the following provision (hereinafter \"Paragraph 9\") regarding appellant's retirement funds: {¶4} \"9. RETIREMENT HOLDINGS – The Plaintiff [Appellee] shall be entitled to receive the sum of $147,959 from one or more of Defendant's [Appellant's] retirement holdings and shall retain same free and clear of any claim o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d814d239-0a44-47e6-a15e-892463492e76","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700098-2700098","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700098","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 115 12","extracted_reporter_citation":"472 N.E.2d 328","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ng to apply the clean hands doctrine. Jurisdiction to Modify {¶26} Appellant additionally contends the trial court should have dismissed the contempt motion on the grounds that the trial court did not have continuing jurisdiction to modify the parties' property division. This Court has recognized that once a court has made an equitable property division, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify its decision without consent. See, e.g., Oberst v. Oberst, Fairfield App.No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-452, ¶ 22, citing R.C. 3105.171(I). However, we find no merit in appellant's essential claim that the contempt remedy in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2700454 Docket: 2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700454 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 3} The record indicates the parties ended their marriage in October, 2006, and executed a separation agreement. The agreement provided in pertinent part: \"11. Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive one-half of IBEW 401(K) by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exists, but it has no value. The court found the pen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties were married. {¶9} Appellant cites us to Ruthrauff v. Ruthrauff, Stark App. No. 2009-CA- 00191, 2010-Ohio-887. In Ruthrauff, the parties' separation agreement provided for Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00193 4 equal distribution of the husband's retirement benefits from U.S. Army. The decree was granted in 1985. When the ex-husband retired from the military in 2003, the ex-wife began receiving half of the total benefits. The trial court found the terms of the separation agreement were clear and unambiguous, and refused to modify the award. We found if the language of a written instrument is clear and unambiguous,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: alified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exists, but it has no value. The court found the pension accrued during the marriage and has an approximate value of $30,000. {¶5} The trial court stated it lacks authority to modify the division of marital property contained in the final decree, but it does have the power to clar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22d37c7-0961-42be-8c40-02dcafdef257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700454-2700454","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): D BY THE COURT.\" {¶3} The record indicates the parties ended their marriage in October, 2006, and executed a separation agreement. The agreement provided in pertinent part: \"11. Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive one-half of IBEW 401(K) by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).\" {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2700477 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.E.2d 533. Docket: 10 CA 118 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700477 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t's conduct in support of the attorney fee award. In its Judgment Entry, the trial court held: {¶25} \"The Court considers the award of attorney fees of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to be equitable. The responsibility for the preparation of the original Qualified Domestic Relations Order was the Defendants. The disagreement primarily before the Court was driven by the Defendant's actions in naming his new wife as beneficiary, thus reducing the amount to which the Plaintiff was by Judgment Entry entitled. The legal costs involving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order have been substantial on both sides. Defendant's bill for his legal s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: granted on May 23, 2007. {¶5} Since that time, the parties have been back before the court on a number of different issues. {¶6} On May 18, 2010, the parties came before the court on a post-decree hearing to decide issues relative to Husband's Executive Retirement Plan and Salaried Retirement Program. Requests for attorney fees were filed by both parties. Additionally, both parties stipulated that the attorney fees incurred by the other were reasonable. {¶7} On June 16, 2010, the Magistrate entered his Decision which, inter alia, awarded attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.00 to Appellee. Richland County, Case No"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. {¶22} Upon review, we find that in the instant case, the magistrate had before him evidence as to Appellant's monthly pension benefit which was initially $8,226.65 and then later reduced to $7,379.62 after he elected his current wife to receive the surviving spouse benefit in contravention of the divorce decree. {¶23} We further find that the trial court was familiar with the parties and their financial situations based on earlier proceedings in this case and the entire recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f3feda9-5cbf-4e27-b106-43178e1ebddb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2700477-2700477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2700477","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 CA 118 7","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.E.2d 533","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t in support of the attorney fee award. In its Judgment Entry, the trial court held: {¶25} \"The Court considers the award of attorney fees of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to be equitable. The responsibility for the preparation of the original Qualified Domestic Relations Order was the Defendants. The disagreement primarily before the Court was driven by the Defendant's actions in naming his new wife as beneficiary, thus reducing the amount to which the Plaintiff was by Judgment Entry entitled. The legal costs involving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order have been substantial on both sides. Defendant's bill for his legal s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2701213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701213 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marriage were emancipated. ¶{6} Approximately 20 days prior to trial at a telephone status conference, the parties stipulated to certain facts. In those stipulations it states: ¶{7} \"Husband has a vested pension with Exxon Mobile and an IRA with Fidelity. A QDRO shall be issued relevant to the two (2) utilizing the dates of coverture as June 28, 1969, through December 21, 2009. Wife to be awarded 50% of coverture portion.\" ¶{8} The magistrate adopted and approved the written stipulations. Neither party filed objections to that decision. ¶{9} The case then proceeded to trial before the court. In the middle of tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the account. However, that does not mean it is his separate property. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a) defines \"Marital property\" as: ¶{28} \"(i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; ¶{29} \"(ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; ¶{30} \"(i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the decision of the Mahoning County Domestic Relations Court that granted defendant-appellee Anastasia DeJoseph's, n.k.a. Anastasia Roussos (Wife), Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the separation agreement solely as it related to the division of the Exxon Mobil pension and awarded Wife 50% interest in Husband's pension with Exxon Mobil from the date of the marriage on June 28, 1969 though the date of the divorce on December 21, 2009. ¶{2} Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the separation agreement as it pertained to the Exxon Mobil account, which he asserts is not a pension. He contends"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5673b03-a5ea-4d11-8483-aa7e939ba02a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701213-2701213","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s from the recently exercised stock options with Exxon Mobil. All of the stock options with Exxon Mobil have now been exercised. Verification of the exercising of the stock options shall be provided to the Defendant no later than January 30, 2010. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be issued against said Pension and a copy shall be forwarded to the Plan Administrator.\" 12/28/09 J.E. ¶{13} On July 2, 2010, Wife filed a \"Motion to Clarify Divorce Entry; Alternatively, Motion to Vacate Judgment Entry of Divorce.\" Wife alleged that in Article Nine of the separation agreement it was the parties' intent to equally divide the investme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2701394 Docket: 08NO353. We held that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701394 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ties' were found to have no marital equity due to a mortgage and a $10,000 down payment which was found to have been derived from the husband's separate property. The court divided the marital portion of the husband's retirement plan and 401K evenly through a QDRO. Each party received a 1994 vehicle. The court ordered that each party would be responsible for payment of their own medical bills and for their own attorney fees. ¶{15} The court found that the parties' American Legion credit card had a $0 balance at the time of the parties' separation but now had a $7,150 balance. The court concluded that this balance wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ation of spousal support, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) the income of the parties; (b) the relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) the ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) the parties' retirement benefits; (e) the duration of the marriage; (f) the extent to which it would be inappropriate for a custodian of a minor child of the marriage to seek employment; (g) the marital standard of living; (h) the parties' education; (i) the parties' relative assets and liabilities, including court-ordered payments; (j) the contribution of each to the education, training,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: not possible for this person to do. ¶{33} The wife has made no qualifying contributions to Social Security, and her eligibility to collect as a spouse will not begin until years after her spousal support terminates. Any retirement benefits from the husband's pension are not available until he retires, which he expressed that he had no intention of doing in the near future. Finally, the wife is in debt, drives an unreliable fifteen-year old vehicle, and lives with her daughter. ¶{34} Under the totality of the facts and circumstances, the amount and/or duration of spousal support is unreasonable. See Kunkle v. Kunkle (1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcbe49a9-71cc-40b0-80e4-7eac4c6d9368","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701394-2701394","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701394","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08NO353. We held that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er from working full-time. (Tr. 70, 75). ¶{7} The husband related that in January of 2007, he discovered a large amount of credit card debt incurred by the wife without his knowledge. After the parties discussed the debt problem, he withdrew $26,000 from his 401K to pay off the debt. (Tr. 54, 61). He complained that after she incurred this credit card debt, she refused to seek employment outside of the home. (Tr. 72). In July of 2007, he received a telephone call regarding additional credit card debt of which he had no knowledge. (Tr. 63-64). ¶{8} The wife was forty-nine years of age at the time of trial with no po"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2701473 Extracted reporter citation: 546 N.E.2d 950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701473 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 21} After the case was remanded to the trial court, on December 4, 2007, Elaine filed a motion for attorney fees and expenses. Specifically, Elaine sought to -8- enforce a provision of the divorce decree that required Charles to pay for the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\"), to be reimbursed for the trial transcripts that were prepared for the appeal in Lepowsky II, and for attorneys fees incurred, \"in pursuing the two appeals filed in connection with this matter, and in attempting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses.\" (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: uld provide an additional \"safety net\" to Elaine's retirement years, the payments as ordered would actually terminate when she was 62 years old, forcing her to take a permanently reduced rate of benefits. Id. at ¶64. Thus, the consideration of the parties' retirement benefits favored an increase in the duration of the award. Id. at ¶63. Finally, we noted the fact that during the marriage the Lepowskys enjoyed an upper-middle class lifestyle, which included a nice home, nice clothes, new cars, and antiques. Id. at ¶15-16. {¶19} Based on the length of the marriage and standard of living to which the parties were accustomed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mpting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses.\" (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the QDROs, Elaine submitted a detailed list of expenses that included a $900.00 bill for the preparation of the QDROs from Pension Evaluators (which included a $200 charge for expedited service) as well as charges for copying, postage, and Federal Express fees. Elaine also sought $781.65 in attorneys' fees for time that her attorney spent compiling and providing information to Pension Evaluators. {¶23} After Elaine filed the motion, Charles forwarded $700 to Elaine. He argued to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7972f37-2db9-4511-baa4-c2552f82e730","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701473-2701473","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701473","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 N.E.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the case was remanded to the trial court, on December 4, 2007, Elaine filed a motion for attorney fees and expenses. Specifically, Elaine sought to -8- enforce a provision of the divorce decree that required Charles to pay for the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\"), to be reimbursed for the trial transcripts that were prepared for the appeal in Lepowsky II, and for attorneys fees incurred, \"in pursuing the two appeals filed in connection with this matter, and in attempting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses.\" (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d8b6798-73fb-452b-89ca-540e642a090b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2007CV00115. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"887 N.E.2d 352","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2701494 Extracted reporter citation: 887 N.E.2d 352. Docket: 2007CV00115. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701494 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d8b6798-73fb-452b-89ca-540e642a090b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2007CV00115. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"887 N.E.2d 352","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d8b6798-73fb-452b-89ca-540e642a090b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2007CV00115. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"887 N.E.2d 352","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eph J. Vukovich Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 25, 2010 [Cite as Planey v. Planey, 2010-Ohio-1295.] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Joseph Planey appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stemming from a 1995 divorce decree concerning the distribution of plaintiff-appellee Suzanna Planey's share of the marital home and an IRA. {¶2} The parties were married in 1968. Suzanna filed for divorce in 1994. When the case was called to trial, Joseph told the court he believed his counsel was ineffective and was going to dismiss him. The court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d8b6798-73fb-452b-89ca-540e642a090b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701494-2701494","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2007CV00115. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"887 N.E.2d 352","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ovich Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 25, 2010 [Cite as Planey v. Planey, 2010-Ohio-1295.] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Joseph Planey appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stemming from a 1995 divorce decree concerning the distribution of plaintiff-appellee Suzanna Planey's share of the marital home and an IRA. {¶2} The parties were married in 1968. Suzanna filed for divorce in 1994. When the case was called to trial, Joseph told the court he believed his counsel was ineffective and was going to dismiss him. The court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2701938 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701938 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ull. {¶30} Furthermore, Arun's challenges to the division of his pension plan are without merit. In its opinion, the trial court awarded Mona a one-half marital interest in Arun's CBHC defined pension plan to be set aside in her name through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court found that the value of the pension was $1,630,904 as of December 31, 2009, and that Mona was entitled to no less than $815,452. Here, Arun argues that it was an abuse of discretion to \"guarantee\" Mona no less than a fixed amount where there was significant evidence presented at trial that the pension plan was underfunded. {¶31} Arun cites"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: le. Blakemore at 219. II. Division of Marital Property {¶7} In a divorce proceeding, marital property includes the following: (i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; (ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; (iii) Exc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of error, Arun argues that the trial court erred by not dividing the parties' retirement benefits equally and by guaranteeing a \"minimum\" amount of benefits to Mona. Specifically, Arun alleges that the trial court erred in dividing his CBHC defined benefit pension equally while allowing Mona to retain the entirety of her annual OPERS benefits of $24,875.76, which Arun argues far exceed his annual OPERS benefits of $8,237.71. {¶27} As stated, the division of marital property includes retirement benefits that were acquired during the marriage. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(ii). However, R.C. 3105.171(C) clearly provides"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16c3c1c2-3994-4561-9f3f-b053de550108","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2701938-2701938","title":"CourtListener opinion 2701938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 0} Furthermore, Arun's challenges to the division of his pension plan are without merit. In its opinion, the trial court awarded Mona a one-half marital interest in Arun's CBHC defined pension plan to be set aside in her name through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court found that the value of the pension was $1,630,904 as of December 31, 2009, and that Mona was entitled to no less than $815,452. Here, Arun argues that it was an abuse of discretion to \"guarantee\" Mona no less than a fixed amount where there was significant evidence presented at trial that the pension plan was underfunded. {¶31} Arun cites"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2702275 Extracted reporter citation: 635 N.E.2d 308. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2702275 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: } Plaintiff-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement benefits, including the proceeds from the pension. A magistrate denied Manning's motion, and the court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision. Manning now appeals arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion to divide Jusak's pension plan and by denying her motion for attorney fees. {¶2} The parties approach the issue on appeal from very d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Detroit Road, Suite 102 Westlake, OH 44145 MELODY J. STEWART, A.J.: {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd065cb2-34dd-4c1b-8295-2cb98eab253d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702275-2702275","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2702380 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2702380 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n the twentieth assignment of error, Kathleen argues the trial court erred by accepting the parties' stipulation that Thomas's Novelis Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan (\"SERP\") should be equally divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). She contends that because the SERP is non-qualified under ERISA it is not subject to division, and the trial court should have made provisions for either offsetting Kathleen's interest in that plan or otherwise compensate her for her 50 percent share of Thomas's SERP benefits. {¶96} However, there is no evidence that SERP is a non-qualified plan. P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rought it up to $324,000. In 2008, his base salary was $285,000 and the two 10 percent premiums brought it to $342,000. At the time of trial, Thomas's base salary had increased by 5 percent each year since 2005. Thomas also received substantial bonuses and retirement benefits. {¶4} The magistrate issued its order for support pendente lite, on April 23, 2008, and ordered Thomas to pay Kathleen $15,000 per month, plus a two percent processing fee, retroactive to October 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Thomas filed a request for an oral hearing to modify the support pendente lite pursuant to Civ.R. 75(N) and the court schedule"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, with a value of $724,956. However, the court's order requires Thomas to pay Kathleen five equal annual installments of a predetermined amount. Thomas was awarded 50 percent of Kathleen's State Teacher Retirement System Pension Plan. The court further awarded Kathleen 50 percent of Thomas's Novelis Pension Plan and his Novelis Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan. {¶9} Part of Thomas's compensation package included payments under Novelis's Long Term Incentive Plan (\"LTIP\"). The magistrate's decision limited Kathleen's share of the LTIP to one-half of any additional LTIP bonu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39b8138e-f85b-4522-8641-05e01b242d95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2702380-2702380","title":"CourtListener opinion 2702380","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: t erred by accepting the parties' stipulation that Thomas's Novelis Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan (\"SERP\") should be equally divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). She contends that because the SERP is non-qualified under ERISA it is not subject to division, and the trial court should have made provisions for either offsetting Kathleen's interest in that plan or otherwise compensate her for her 50 percent share of Thomas's SERP benefits. {¶96} However, there is no evidence that SERP is a non-qualified plan. Plaintiff's exhibit No. 20, which describes executive compensation at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2704152 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704152 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Bakers & Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak (\"Patricia\"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak (\"Joseph\"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia and Joseph were divorced on March 8, 1995. Their divorce decree incorporates their separation agreement, which provides, in pertinent part: \"Wife shall retain Husband's Sysco Pension Plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n Road North Royalton, Ohio 44133 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE For Joseph Pawlak Margaret E. Stanard Stanard & Corsi, Co., L.P.A. 1370 Ontario Street 748 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak (\"Patricia\"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak (\"Joseph\"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak (\"Patricia\"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak (\"Joseph\"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia and Joseph were divorced on March 8, 1995. Their divorce decree incorporates their separation agreement, which provides, in pertinent part: \"Wife shall retain Husband's Sysco Pension Plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1605fb7-b47e-4264-b7f5-74317a5c6698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704152-2704152","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: raining order is still in effect. Patricia also contends that the court erred when it failed to apply the doctrine of res judicata to bar Joseph's claims. {¶ 9} However, it is well established that: \"[a] QDRO is merely an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce or dissolution decree. So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3105.171(I) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it.\" Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio App.3d 141, 2009-Ohio-688, 908 N.E.2d 469, ¶26, citing Tarbert v. Tarbert (Sept. 27, 1996), Clark App."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2704625 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704625 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Costanzo Costanzo & Lazzaro 13317 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ronald K. Butcher (\"Husband\"), appeals from the trial court's judgment entry adopting the proposed qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") of plaintiff-appellee, Sally J. Butcher, n.k.a. Peterson (\"Wife\"). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions. {¶ 2} In September 2000, the parties' marriage was terminated by a divorce decree that incorporated and adopted the parties' negotiated handwritten separation agreement. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a QDRO w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ally.'\" Accordingly, the magistrate recommended that Wife's QDRO, which utilized coverture fraction and provided Wife with early retirement supplements, interim supplements, temporary benefits, and pre-retirement survivorship benefits under Husband's Ford retirement account, be adopted. {¶ 6} Husband filed written objections to the magistrate's decision, in which he challenged only the recommendation to adopt Wife's proposed QDRO. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision in its entirety, without a hearing. Husband now appeals, arguing as his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in adopting Wife's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: inated by a divorce decree that incorporated and adopted the parties' negotiated handwritten separation agreement. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a QDRO was to be submitted to the trial court resolving Wife's interest in Husband's Ford Motor Company pension. Husband submitted his proposed QDRO to Wife; however, she did not respond to the proposal. In February 2009, Husband moved the trial court to adopt his proposed QDRO, which the court adopted a week later. Upon receiving notification of the signed QDRO, Wife filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that she did not receive notice of Husband's m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b3d4805-b48d-49c9-b8a1-6228acd6fe19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704625-2704625","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: .g., McKinney v. McKinney (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 604, 608, 756 N.E.2d 694. {¶ 9} To effectuate the division of pension and retirement benefits, the domestic relations court enters a QDRO, which is an order that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefit payable with respect to a participant under a plan * * *.\" Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 206(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Ordinarily, it is issued subsequent to and separate from the decree of divorce itself. A QDRO is therefore merely an or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48557137-88c4-48dd-9d77-532051edc95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2704781 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704781 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48557137-88c4-48dd-9d77-532051edc95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48557137-88c4-48dd-9d77-532051edc95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ns of time to file her objections to the magistrate's decision. No objections were filed by April 30, 2009, which was the deadline under the third extension. On June 4, 2009, the court issued its final decree. On December 4, 2009, the trial court filed two qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). On June 3, 2010, Wilson-Walker filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate. The trial court denied the motion, without a hearing, on June 10, 2010. {¶ 3} Wilson-Walker has assigned the following two assignments of error for our review: \"I. The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant's motion for relief from judgment without conducting"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48557137-88c4-48dd-9d77-532051edc95d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2704781-2704781","title":"CourtListener opinion 2704781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to file her objections to the magistrate's decision. No objections were filed by April 30, 2009, which was the deadline under the third extension. On June 4, 2009, the court issued its final decree. On December 4, 2009, the trial court filed two qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). On June 3, 2010, Wilson-Walker filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate. The trial court denied the motion, without a hearing, on June 10, 2010. {¶ 3} Wilson-Walker has assigned the following two assignments of error for our review: \"I. The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant's motion for relief from judgment without conducting"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2705096 Docket: 26957 26962 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705096 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ied Husband's motion for the same reason. According to Wife, since Husband did not appeal the original division of property order, he is barred from arguing that he is entitled to anything other than the \"first benefit\" that she received from STRS. {¶6} A qualified domestic relations order \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). When the retirement plan at issu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n 2007, Wife began receiving disability benefits from STRS. Based on the language of the division of property order, STRS paid some of her benefits to Husband. Wife moved to modify the order, arguing that Husband was only entitled to receive a share of her retirement benefits, not pre-retirement disability benefits. The trial court denied her motion and this Court affirmed, concluding that neither the decree nor the division of property order excluded Husband from receiving Wife's STRS disability benefits. Kesling at ¶ 20. {¶4} Wife later returned to work, and she continued working until she retired in February 2013. After"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: contributed to the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS). At the time of the divorce, Husband's income was solely from Social Security Disability and Veteran's Administration Disability. The parties agreed that Husband should receive part of Wife's STRS pension. In its decree, the court directed them to \"employ Pension Evaluators to determine the marital portion [of Wife's STRS account] and to determine the value of a Social Security offset for [Husband's] 2 right to receive Social Security benefits. The marital portion of said account less said Social Security offset will then be divided equally between the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58d3a29c-1d96-4070-91a2-35d1fc3135a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705096-2705096","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26957 26962 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: not appeal the original division of property order, he is barred from arguing that he is entitled to anything other than the \"first benefit\" that she received from STRS. {¶6} A qualified domestic relations order \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). When the retirement plan at issue is a public retirement plan, such orders are referred to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2705158 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seders. Docket: 13CA0009 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705158 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lows: The parties acknowledge that both parties have accumulated retirement funds in both public and private accounts in their sole names through their respective employment positions and have agreed upon the division of these accounts as follows: A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue equally dividing the vested value of Wife's retirement account accumulate[d] through Wooster Eye Center, as of the date of the court order which terminates her marital relationship or the nearest date of value established by the plan administrator, minus the amount of any unpaid loan proceeds on the account. Wife shall assume full re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ately offered for sale through public auction,\" and the terms of the auction would \"be agreed upon and determined through an auction contract executed by both parties.\" {¶3} Further, in the separation agreement, the parties agreed to the division of their retirement benefits as follows: The parties acknowledge that both parties have accumulated retirement funds in both public and private accounts in their sole names through their respective employment positions and have agreed upon the division of these accounts as follows: A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue equally dividing the vested value of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o make timely mortgage payments on the mortgages securing the marital residence, his failure to secure a release of Wife from liability on the mortgages, his failure to pay her one half of the equity in the marital residence, and his failure to divide a 3 pension account. Wife further asked the court to order an auction of the marital residence in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement. {¶5} The trial court held a hearing before a magistrate on Wife's motion, and the magistrate issued a decision on August 30, 2012. On the same date that the magistrate issued his decision, the trial court issued a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54118619-54b0-4c10-bf22-26cc2af2c821","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705158-2705158","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705158","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13CA0009 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): itable division of their retirement accounts. After the decree was issued, the parties prepared two QDROs, one dividing Wife's plan known as \"Wooster Ophthalmologists, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan\" and one dividing Husband's plan known as \"K+S/Morton Salt 401(k) Savings Plan.\" {¶4} In 2012, Wife filed a motion in the trial court asking that Husband be found in contempt for his failure to make timely mortgage payments on the mortgages securing the marital residence, his failure to secure a release of Wife from liability on the mortgages, his failure to pay her one half of the equity in the marital residence, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2705396 Docket: 12CA0035 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705396 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nown as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan.\" Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pension plan with UPS. {¶4} To facilitate the transfer of the pension plan to Wife, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was prepared. The court signed the QDRO on June 18, 2010. Sometime thereafter, Wife learned that Husband's UPS pension benefits had been split into two separate plans, the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (\"Central States Fund\") and the UPS/IBT Full Time Employee Pension Plan (\"Full Time Employee Plan\"). The plan administrator"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or dissolution of marriage and attached a proposed dissolution agreement. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and incorporated the parties' agreement detailing the division of property. {¶3} The dissolution agreement contains a section for retirement accounts and, within that, a subsection for pensions. The pension subsection lists only one account. The agreement states that \"Husband has a vested interest in a pension provided through his employer, UPS, said 2 Plan being known as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan.\" Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and incorporated the parties' agreement detailing the division of property. {¶3} The dissolution agreement contains a section for retirement accounts and, within that, a subsection for pensions. The pension subsection lists only one account. The agreement states that \"Husband has a vested interest in a pension provided through his employer, UPS, said 2 Plan being known as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan.\" Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pension plan with UPS. {¶4} To facilitate the transfer of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52498132-c1a6-4968-a5be-f1b3b69f1bbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705396-2705396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12CA0035 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: NAL ENTRY Dated: August 19, 2013 WHITMORE, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, John Semmelhaack (\"Husband\"), appeals from the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting Appellee, Elegra Semmelhaack's, motion to enforce property division provisions. This Court reverses. I {¶2} Husband and Elegra Semmelhaack (\"Wife\") were married on July 10, 1982, and have two emancipated children from the marriage. On December 12, 2008, Husband and Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and attached a proposed dissolution agreement. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2705492 Docket: 26418 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705492 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n of Domestic Relations. We reverse. I. {¶2} After nearly thirty-three years of marriage, James McFall (\"Husband\") and Wife divorced on February 22, 2010. At the time of their divorce, they had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savings plan through First Energy Corp., (5) Wife's 401k plan throu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r 10, 2009. {¶3} The parties' Decree of Divorce included a provision entitled \"Preretirement Survivorship Protection for Alternate Payee,\" which stated: In order to secure an Alternate Payee's ownership right in the assigned portion of the Participant's retirement benefits under the Plan, in the event that the latter predeceases the Alternate Payee and neither party has commenced his or her benefits under the Plan, such Alternate Payee shall be designated as the surviving spouse of the other for purposes of establishing his/her entitlement to receipt of this monthly preretirement surviving spouse annuity. This designatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ounty Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. We reverse. I. {¶2} After nearly thirty-three years of marriage, James McFall (\"Husband\") and Wife divorced on February 22, 2010. At the time of their divorce, they had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94f8ae87-e3db-4893-a069-9329d2cebd80","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705492-2705492","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26418 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): y had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savings plan through First Energy Corp., (5) Wife's 401k plan through KeyBank, and (6) Wife's defined benefit pension through KeyBank. For purposes of determining the marital portion of the 2 parties' pensions, the length of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2705723 Docket: 11CA010091 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705723 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 89 DU 037396 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 3, 2012 DICKINSON, Judge. INTRODUCTION {¶1} James and Brenda Ross divorced after 25 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, the trial court approved a qualified domestic relations order that gave Ms. Ross \"one- half\" of Mr. Ross's interest in his pension plan \"as of January 16, 1990.\" When Mr. Ross retired many years later, the administrator of the pension plan rejected the court's order. Ms. Ross subsequently moved the trial court to approve a new qualified domestic relations order. The court referred the issue to a magistrate, who re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s added.) In addition, the original QDRO provides that \"[b]enefits from this Plan shall be payable to the Alternate Payee [Wife] equal to one-half of the Participant's [Husband] interest as of January 16, 1990.\" {¶14} It is well-settled that \"[p]ension or retirement benefits earned during the course of a marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the division of property.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 5. \"A QDRO ‘implements a trial court's decision of how [retirement benefits are] to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.'\" Id at ¶ 7. As the majority correctly indicates,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 012 DICKINSON, Judge. INTRODUCTION {¶1} James and Brenda Ross divorced after 25 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, the trial court approved a qualified domestic relations order that gave Ms. Ross \"one- half\" of Mr. Ross's interest in his pension plan \"as of January 16, 1990.\" When Mr. Ross retired many years later, the administrator of the pension plan rejected the court's order. Ms. Ross subsequently moved the trial court to approve a new qualified domestic relations order. The court referred the issue to a magistrate, who recommended that it determine Ms. Ross's interest in the pension plan b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80c45254-45b8-49b9-bd76-1f40e66c69d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2705723-2705723","title":"CourtListener opinion 2705723","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11CA010091 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: s of January 16, 1990 as shown in the [QDRO] attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and all survivorship interest in said plan. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the original QDRO provides that \"[b]enefits from this Plan shall be payable to the Alternate Payee [Wife] equal to one-half of the Participant's [Husband] interest as of January 16, 1990.\" {¶14} It is well-settled that \"[p]ension or retirement benefits earned during the course of a marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the division of property.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 5. \"A QDRO ‘implements a t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2706430 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 10CA0034-M Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2706430 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d Airlines, consisting of his monthly pension, the Frank Russell [account] []and the [RAA account], referred to respectively as the A and B Plans that those should be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [\"QDROs\"]. Said order shall be prepared by QDRO Consultants, and the parties agree that each shall be responsible for one-half of the expense of preparing such Qualified Orders. The date of the [QDROs] shall be a division on date of final hearing, which is as of July 25, 2001. The parties agree and the Court orders that the distribution by and between [Wife] shall be 50 percent of the marital covert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ummarized much of this matter's facts and procedural history in a prior appeal: \"Husband and Janice M. Miller (\"Wife\") were married on October 25, 1969. Husband worked both before and during the parties' marriage and participated in each of the following retirement accounts: a United Airlines defined-benefit account, a Frank Russell Corporation ‘A fund' account (‘the Frank Russell account'), and a Retirement Advisors of America ‘B fund' account (‘the RAA account'). After Wife filed for divorce on August 10, 2000, the parties engaged in lengthy litigation, culminating in this appeal. The sole issue on appeal is whether th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nts'). 2 \"The parties' divorce hearing took place on July 25, 2001. At the hearing, the parties read an agreement into the record, part of which defined how they would distribute the Accounts. The record provides as follows: \"‘There are some retirement pension accounts that are set forth on Attachment B[.] * * * [The Accounts] * * * are the United Airlines related accounts typically called the ‘A' and ‘B' funds. Those also will be divided taking into consideration the premarital component credit to [Husband] before the equal division. * * * The pension distribution-the ‘A' and ‘B' funds-will be handled throug"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1991085b-f9f0-49bb-a2ee-300dcc24dab9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706430-2706430","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706430","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10CA0034-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ement accounts. One of those accounts was a defined benefit plan held in Mr. Miller's name. That account has been divided using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and is no longer at issue in this case. The remaining nine accounts 16 were apparently all defined contribution plans: five in Mrs. Miller's name and four in Mr. Miller's name. The five accounts in Mrs. Miller's name were marital property because they contained only assets purchased with funds deposited during the marriage or purchased with account earnings during the marriage. Two of the accounts in Mr. Miller's name were also marital property. One contained onl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b721f37-bb04-4bce-96af-fc3222e460bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706551","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2706551 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2706551 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b721f37-bb04-4bce-96af-fc3222e460bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706551","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b721f37-bb04-4bce-96af-fc3222e460bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706551","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on filed his answer on July 22, 2005. The matter proceeded to trial in August 2006. On April 11, 2007, the trial court issued its decree of divorce. On May 13, 2009, two qualified domestic relations orders were issued in this case, distributing the parties' retirement accounts in accordance with the decree of divorce. On May 27, 2009, Mr. Byron filed a notice of appeal. Ms. Shih filed a notice of cross-appeal on June 5, 2009. On June 29, 2009, this Court dismissed both appeals on the basis that the parties did not appeal from a final, appealable order. In our journal entry, we concluded that the trial court had insufficientl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b721f37-bb04-4bce-96af-fc3222e460bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706551","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sequently, on March 16, 2005, Ms. Shih filed a complaint for divorce. Mr. Byron filed his answer on July 22, 2005. The matter proceeded to trial in August 2006. On April 11, 2007, the trial court issued its decree of divorce. On May 13, 2009, two qualified domestic relations orders were issued in this case, distributing the parties' retirement accounts in accordance with the decree of divorce. On May 27, 2009, Mr. Byron filed a notice of appeal. Ms. Shih filed a notice of cross-appeal on June 5, 2009. On June 29, 2009, this Court dismissed both appeals on the basis that the parties did not appeal from a final, appealable order. In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b721f37-bb04-4bce-96af-fc3222e460bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2706551-2706551","title":"CourtListener opinion 2706551","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: itures and this portion of his argument must be rejected. {¶13} To the extent that the trial court assigned the same debt on the line of credit to Mr. Byron on two separate occasions, the first assignment of error is sustained. How this error impacts the equitable distribution of marital assets and debts is not before us, but may be considered by the trial court on remand. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II \"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING APPELLEE SPOUSAL SUPPORT, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.\" {¶14} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Byron argues that the trial erred in awarding Ms."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2707258 Docket: of years. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707258 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: H 44004 (For Plaintiff-Appellant). William P. Bobulsky, William P. Bobulsky Co., L.P.A., 1612 East Prospect Road, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For Defendant-Appellee). PER CURIAM. {¶1} Appellant, Thomas Nappi, appeals the judgment of the trial court clarifying a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which increased the monthly payment to appellee, Lauren Nappi, from $77.82 per month to $302.77 per month. Based on the following, we affirm. {¶2} The parties were married on June 15, 1982, and divorced by final judgment on December 16, 1997. Prior to that date, the trial court noted that the parties had reached an agreement as to all the ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r to that date, the trial court noted that the parties had reached an agreement as to all the marital issues and granted the parties' divorce on the ground of incompatibility. The December 16, 1997 Final Decree of Divorce provided the following: {¶3} \"C. Retirement Benefits {¶4} \"1. The marital portion of Plaintiff, Thomas Nappi's retirement benefit with ESAB shall be divided in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" {¶5} The QDRO relative to Thomas's ESAB Welding & Cutting Products Plan (\"the Plan\") was filed on January 29, 1998. Each party, along with their counsel, signed a separate approval page,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed on January 29, 1998. Each party, along with their counsel, signed a separate approval page, which were incorporated into the document. At paragraph 5 of the QDRO, it stated that Lauren would receive the following: [F]ifty percent (50%) of Participant's pension entitlements from the date of marriage of June 5, 1982 through December 3, 1997 shall be credited to a separate bookkeeping account under the Plan in the name of Alternate Payee. Such amount, adjusted in accordance with the Plan for any appreciation or depreciation and gains or losses subsequent to the most recent Plan valuation date * * * and prior t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f97281-4244-43c4-907e-9f4ef98bef9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707258-2707258","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ated that Lauren would receive the following: [F]ifty percent (50%) of Participant's pension entitlements from the date of marriage of June 5, 1982 through December 3, 1997 shall be credited to a separate bookkeeping account under the Plan in the name of Alternate Payee. Such amount, adjusted in accordance with the Plan for any appreciation or depreciation and gains or losses subsequent to the most recent Plan valuation date * * * and prior to the date of distribution, but not adjusted for any contributions or forfeitures under the Plan subsequent to the Valuation Date, shall be payable to Alternate Payee in accordanc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2707393 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707393 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Luke, appeals from the January 17, 2013 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: omestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appellee in the QDRO did not revert back to appellant upon appellee's deat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t as a matter of fact and law in its determination that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not in the nature of a survivor annuity which by its terms allowed for survivorship and/or reversion to the plan participant/appellant upon the death of the alternate payee. {¶6} Appellant's second and third assignments of error raise objections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision. By failing to timely object to the magistrate's findings below, however, appellant has waived all but plain error on appeal. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Regarding plain error, the following standard of review was announced b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5258d250-e856-4141-a2db-d570f5849076","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707393-2707393","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: als from the January 17, 2013 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2707453 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.E.2d 236. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707453 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, adopting the Magistrate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen M. Angelo and defendant-appellee, Anthony L. Angelo. I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: c relations court issued a QDRO with respect to the J.C. Penney Savings Plan, containing the following provision: {¶4} SECTION 4. From the benefits which would otherwise be payable to the Participant [Anthony] under the Plan, the Participant assigns to Alternate Payee [Karen] and the Alternate Payee shall receive directly from the Plan, an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of Participant's vested account balance accrued from May 21, 1988, to November 9, 2002. {¶5} On March 2, 2006, an amended QDRO was issued with respect to the J.C. Penney Savings Plan. The amended QDRO added a section addressing the payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90285a2f-d657-43ec-8c82-b09ac23c467e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707453-2707453","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707453","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urt of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, adopting the Magistrate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2707664 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707664 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 94,500.00) and [Thomas] awarded the sum of Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($94,500.00). * * * 13 {¶57} [Carolyn] is awarded Fifty percent (50%) of [Thomas'] FirstEnergy Corporation Pension Plan earned during the marriage to be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order * * *. {¶58} In sum, the trial court ordered the equal division of the marital residence, Thomas' savings plan, and Thomas' pension plan. Each party retained the personal property in their possession. Carolyn retained her 401K, inasmuch as the court made no express division of this asset. According to the court's order, Carolyn was to receive $27,500"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: gross or in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) The income of the parties * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; * * * (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties; (i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties * * *; * * * (n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable.\" R.C. 3105.18(C)(1)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 9 Ohio St.2d at 319-320, 432 N.E.2d 183. {¶52} The trial court identified the following marital assets: the marital residence ($142,500); personal property ($41,000); Carolyn's 401K ($18,500); Thomas' savings 12 plan as of March 2011 ($189,000); Thomas' pension plan as of February 2010 ($193,709). The court made the following division of property: {¶53} The marital residence located at 2916 Sexton Road, Geneva, Ohio, 44041, currently occupied by [Carolyn], has a stipulated value of One Hundred Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($142,500.00), shall be listed for sale with a mutually agreed-upon rea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b22aa18-2e67-48c2-8f76-f2514a7db71c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2707664-2707664","title":"CourtListener opinion 2707664","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Forms, Carolyn received taxable wages of $28,628.51 in 2010, or about $2,385.71 per month; Thomas' taxable wages in 2010 were $80,503.09, or about $6,708.59 per month. Thomas' lower monthly figures are the result of deductions made for taxes, saving plans/401K, and health and life insurance. Thomas' lower monthly income reflects the fact that he contributes $201 every biweekly pay period to savings, whereas Carolyn only contributes $70.10 per biweekly pay to savings. Thomas also pays for health and life insurance out of his biweekly pay, an expense that Carolyn was not paying for at the time of the divorce. W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c71e4-904c-4ce1-b216-2a8038ed36d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824","title":"CourtListener opinion 2709824","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2709824 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Iqbal. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2709824 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c71e4-904c-4ce1-b216-2a8038ed36d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824","title":"CourtListener opinion 2709824","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c71e4-904c-4ce1-b216-2a8038ed36d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824","title":"CourtListener opinion 2709824","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's \"reservation\" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the \"reserved-jurisdiction\" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"677c71e4-904c-4ce1-b216-2a8038ed36d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2709824-2709824","title":"CourtListener opinion 2709824","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ty seeking maintenance to acquire appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe6c2516-e6ac-480b-ba6d-d3430a01fc47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828","title":"CourtListener opinion 2713828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2713828 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DARYL HOWARD and. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2713828 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe6c2516-e6ac-480b-ba6d-d3430a01fc47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828","title":"CourtListener opinion 2713828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe6c2516-e6ac-480b-ba6d-d3430a01fc47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828","title":"CourtListener opinion 2713828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Daryl Howard Meeks (Daryl)1 appeals from a trial court order following a judgment of dissolution of marriage. He seems to contend that the trial court erred in its award of a portion of Daryl's pension/retirement plan to Monica Jo Meeks (Monica). Because Daryl did not meet his burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daryl and Monica were married. According to the judgment, entered April 1, 1993, their marital status ended on October 19, 1992. Also according to the terms of the judgment, Monica was entitled to a portion of Daryl's retirement bene"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe6c2516-e6ac-480b-ba6d-d3430a01fc47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828","title":"CourtListener opinion 2713828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nfusing and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Daryl Howard Meeks (Daryl)1 appeals from a trial court order following a judgment of dissolution of marriage. He seems to contend that the trial court erred in its award of a portion of Daryl's pension/retirement plan to Monica Jo Meeks (Monica). Because Daryl did not meet his burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daryl and Monica were married. According to the judgment, entered April 1, 1993, their marital status ended on October 19, 1992. Also according to the terms of the judgment, Monica was entitled to a portion of Daryl's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe6c2516-e6ac-480b-ba6d-d3430a01fc47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2713828-2713828","title":"CourtListener opinion 2713828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a copy of the judgment, notice of entry of judgment, a copy of the minute order denying Daryl's request for an order of modification, and the notice of appeal. While he claims that he filed a motion for modification of the original judgment and new qualified domestic relations order, no such documents are a part of the appellate record. (Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320–1321.) In fact, as set forth above, many assertions are made without reference to law or the appellate record. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [appellant bears the burden of 3 supporting a point with reasoned argument];"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2716879 Extracted reporter citation: 41 A.3d 248. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2716879 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective \"pension/retirement plans\"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of defendant's medical coverage under his retirement plan. There was further discussion regarding one"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ement of both plaintiff and defendant. Finally, the trial justice performed an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective \"pension/retirement plans\"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of def"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he retirement of both plaintiff and defendant. Finally, the trial justice performed an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective \"pension/retirement plans\"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc245c88-e150-4c82-b911-e5e15d329b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2716879-2716879","title":"CourtListener opinion 2716879","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"41 A.3d 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: le distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective \"pension/retirement plans\"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of defendant's medical coverage under his retirement plan. There was further discussion regarding one"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2718533 Docket: of the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2718533 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77).1 This matter also came for hearing on September 30, 2013 on Scott's contempt motion filed June 14, 2013. (Id.).2 The trial court heard testimony from Michelle, Scott, David Kelley (\"Kelley\"), a pension consultant with QDRO Consultants Company, William Napoli, Jr. (\"Napoli\"), the president of, and actuary consultant with, American Benefit Evaluators, and Larry Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial court divided the mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial court divided the marital portion of each party's pension and retirement benefits and the parties' marital and separate debts, denied Michelle's claim on Scott's real estate owned prior to the marriage, and issued a decision on the motions for contempt and 1 The October 28, 2013 judgment entry incorrectly states that the matter was heard on June 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). The June 28, 2013 transcri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ney fees, filed May 24, 2013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77).1 This matter also came for hearing on September 30, 2013 on Scott's contempt motion filed June 14, 2013. (Id.).2 The trial court heard testimony from Michelle, Scott, David Kelley (\"Kelley\"), a pension consultant with QDRO Consultants Company, William Napoli, Jr. (\"Napoli\"), the president of, and actuary consultant with, American Benefit Evaluators, and Larry Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aee05bb-d505-4768-b59d-293c380d93a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2718533-2718533","title":"CourtListener opinion 2718533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: equitable distribution of Scott's and Michelle's pension and retirement benefits, Napoli testified that the $183,380.05 valuation should be used if the court determined that Scott and Michelle's pension and retirement benefits should be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other domestic relations order. (June 28, 2013 Tr. at 130); (Doc. No. 63). -14- Case No. 9-13-67 used to calculate the present value of Scott's STRS pension benefits. Both witnesses were properly qualified as experts in the field of valuing pension and retirement benefits pursuant to Michelle's and Scott's stipulations. (Aug. 6, 2013 Tr. at 11, 90"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39a15aad-e3c8-4c5e-9b3f-a620de8f8c70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306","title":"CourtListener opinion 2719306","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2719306 Extracted case name: SMITH v. OPM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2719306 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39a15aad-e3c8-4c5e-9b3f-a620de8f8c70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306","title":"CourtListener opinion 2719306","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39a15aad-e3c8-4c5e-9b3f-a620de8f8c70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306","title":"CourtListener opinion 2719306","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: m civil service, we vacate and remand. I Ms. Smith and her former spouse, Paul Marshall, di- vorced in March 1987 while Mr. Marshall was a federal employee. A divorce judgment issued that year, dividing the couple's marital property. It included a qualified domestic relations order (1987 order) allocating Mr. Marshall's accrued benefits. In 1999, a court modi- fied the 1987 order (1999 order). Mr. Marshall retired from federal service in 2005 and died in 2006. Following Mr. Marshall's death, Ms. Smith applied for a former spouse annuity. In 2013, an adminis- trative judge found that the 1987 order provided Ms. Smith a former spouse a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39a15aad-e3c8-4c5e-9b3f-a620de8f8c70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2719306-2719306","title":"CourtListener opinion 2719306","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: d by rule, law, or regulation, or unsupported by substantial evidence.\" Addison v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1184, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The law provides that a former spouse of a federal employee is entitled to a survivor annuity if and to the extent a divorce decree or court order expressly so pro- vides. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1). A modification of the provi- sions involving an annuity in such a decree or order shall not be effective if made after the retirement or death of the employee concerned. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4). OPM's regulations state: For purposes of awarding, increasing,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2722563 Extracted case name: APPELLATE DIVISION v. MICHAEL KRUPINSKI. Docket: A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2722563 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: is agreed that at such time as the Husband starts to draw his pension, the Wife shall be entitled to one-third of each of the periodic pension payments made to the Husband. The Husband further agrees to execute such qualifying domestic relations order [QDRO] as may be necessary to direct the organization administering the pension to make the Wife's one-third share of each pension payment directly to the Wife. At the time the court entered the JOD in 1990, the PERS recognized defendant had accumulated nineteen years and eleven months of service as a public school teacher. The QDRO, which for reasons not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: in the PERS. Of particular importance here, defendant continued his education after the parties separated, and was promoted to an administrative position, resulting in a significant increase in salary. The Division of Pensions and Benefits calculated his retirement benefits based on an annual salary of $132,210.97, nearly three times the $45,798 salary he was making as a teacher when he separated from plaintiff. With respect to alimony, Article II, Paragraph 4 of the PSA obligated defendant to pay plaintiff $100 per week, the equivalent of $430 per month ($100 X 4.3 weeks), subject to termination only upon plaintiff's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ted. Defendant's motion requires the trial court to address and answer one key question it did not address in denying defendant's motion to terminate alimony in 2010 and again in 2012. Specifically, the court must discern what part of the $1,871 monthly pension benefits plaintiff has been receiving since defendant's retirement in 2010 is attributable to defendant's post-dissolution efforts, and thus may be considered income to plaintiff for purposes of determining alimony, outside the bar imposed in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b). The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion without making this threshold determ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22f105b0-1b1b-439f-88cd-6119e59461d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722563-2722563","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: A-2300-12T2 denominator will be stated to be the total years of service credit accrued within the retirement system at the time of retirement. After payments commence to the Alternate Payee, they shall continue until the death of the Participant or the Alternate Payee. The Alternate Payee shall receive a pro-rata share of any cost of living adjustments or other economic improvements made to the Participant's retirement allowance on or after the date of his retirement. Such pro- rata share shall be calculated in the same manner as the Alternate Payee's share of the Participant's gross monthly retirement allowanc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2722866 Extracted reporter citation: 888 A.2d 906. Docket: 1804 WDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2722866 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: insurance through the COBRA plan with PennDot, the cost will be $541.00 monthly. Master's Report, at 5-6, 7-8. The Master also recommended the equal division of Husband's pension that was not yet in pay status. Wife's attorney was directed to prepare a QDRO so that at the time Husband retired, Wife would receive her share.2 Additionally, to cover a partial amount of Wife's attorney's fees, the Master recommended that Husband pay $4,500.00 to Wife's counsel. The Master further recommended that Husband pay alimony to Wife for a four-year period, the first two years at $1,000.00 per month and the third and fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: plaint in divorce on September 2, 2010. A hearing before a Master was held on February 6, 2013, which resolved issues concerning the equitable distribution of the parties' assets, including Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) pension, valued at $333,706.00, Husband's deferred compensation account, valued at $15,536.00, the parties' vehicles, and a bank account. The Master explained his recommendation for the division of the bank account, stating: First Commonwealth Checking and Savings Account. At the time of separation, the above account contained $70,835.99. The Wife removed $65"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): household expenses and medical bills. She has also worked as a cashier for Giant Eagle and worked two summers at Idewild in the gift shop cashier's office and in Storybook Forest. Those jobs were minimum wage jobs with no benefits. The Wife has no IRA or 401k. The Wife hasn't worked since 2010 when she stated she went into a coma and was hospitalized and received therapy for approximately one month. Based on the Wife's age and health, it is doubtful she will be able to obtain employment for more than minimum wage unless she received additional training and her health improves. Upon cross-examination of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d30eca64-b249-4c48-b738-532ac0c1a79c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2722866-2722866","title":"CourtListener opinion 2722866","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1804 WDA 2013","extracted_reporter_citation":"888 A.2d 906","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ed cross-appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2013, that ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19010-14 essentially duplicated the court's July 26, 2013 order providing for the equitable distribution of the parties marital property, and directing Husband to pay Wife: (1) a portion of her attorney's fees, (2) alimony for a four-year period, and (3) $1,000 for unreimbursed medical expenses. Both parties raise issues concerning these items. After review, we affirm. The parties were married on July 24, 1987, and separated on July 7, 2010.1 Wife filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45a060cb-5426-4f55-8083-1ff7eaaee117","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936","title":"CourtListener opinion 2724936","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2724936 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2724936 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45a060cb-5426-4f55-8083-1ff7eaaee117","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936","title":"CourtListener opinion 2724936","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45a060cb-5426-4f55-8083-1ff7eaaee117","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936","title":"CourtListener opinion 2724936","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: %. On September 18, 2012, Terry's counsel sent Michelle's counsel two checks totaling $107,961: the $27,445 payment from Terry's American United Life account, and the $80,516 equalization payment balance. Terry also filed with the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the $31,043 Great American Life and Annuity payment and an IRA Divorce Transfer Request for the $22,816 American Funds payment. Together, these payments and documents satisfied the $161,820 equalization judgment. On November 1, 3 2012, Michelle signed a Release of Judgment verifying that Terry had satisfied that judgment. On November 26, 2012, M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45a060cb-5426-4f55-8083-1ff7eaaee117","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2724936-2724936","title":"CourtListener opinion 2724936","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 2,816 from his American Funds account; and 3) $27,445 from his American United Life Insurance account. This would be $81,304, and Terry would still owe $80,516. Terry has satisfied the $161,820 equalization judgment; however, he has not, as required by the property division, signed over to Michell the $31,043 from the Great American account and the $22,816 from the American Funds account. Terry relies on Michelle's Release of Judgment, but his reliance is misplaced. The dissolution decree distinguished between the distribution of the parties' property and the equalization judgment. Trial Rule 67(B) required Michelle to s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30d83396-6ea7-44c8-94fe-60dde1233323","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"799 N.E.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2725337 Extracted reporter citation: 799 N.E.2d 1048. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2725337 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30d83396-6ea7-44c8-94fe-60dde1233323","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"799 N.E.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30d83396-6ea7-44c8-94fe-60dde1233323","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"799 N.E.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Jerry F. Jacobi, Judge Cause No. 10C02-0906-DR-117 March 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a dissolution of marriage between Albert Purcell and Theresa Purcell, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that distributed funds from a profit sharing account owned by the parties prior to their divorce. Albert, pro se, appeals the QDRO, raising the following issue for our review: whether the QDRO improperly modified the terms of the parties' decree of dissolution. Concluding the QDRO did not countermand the terms of the decree of dissolution, we a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30d83396-6ea7-44c8-94fe-60dde1233323","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"799 N.E.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Jacobi, Judge Cause No. 10C02-0906-DR-117 March 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a dissolution of marriage between Albert Purcell and Theresa Purcell, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that distributed funds from a profit sharing account owned by the parties prior to their divorce. Albert, pro se, appeals the QDRO, raising the following issue for our review: whether the QDRO improperly modified the terms of the parties' decree of dissolution. Concluding the QDRO did not countermand the terms of the decree of dissolution, we a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30d83396-6ea7-44c8-94fe-60dde1233323","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725337-2725337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"799 N.E.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). II. The QDRO Albert argues that the QDRO operated to improperly modify the terms of the parties' decree. More specifically, he contends the QDRO incorrectly adjusted for gains or losses on the Account since the October 31, 2010 valuation date, rather than merely distributing one-half of the money that existed in the Account as of that date. Theresa responds that the court's ruling on the motion to correct error, which was made without specific grounds for the denial, may be affirmed for two reasons: (1) Albert's motion to correct error was untimely, and (2) the QDRO did not improperly modify"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2725843 Extracted reporter citation: 742 N.E.2d 991. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2725843 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bankruptcy court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it had been the intent of the court that the wife have a judgmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e. Id. The wife petitioned the bankruptcy court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it had been the intent of the court that the wife have a judgmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b19b33d-cf30-4f36-83e9-2ead6cb3dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2725843-2725843","title":"CourtListener opinion 2725843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"742 N.E.2d 991","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: was not something that Sandra could provide, she should be ordered to provide the monetary value because she had several opportunities to argue that it did not belong in the marital estate. Moreover, James contended that after nearly one year, the original property division could not be reopened. By contrast, Sandra pointed out that James had already made several arguments about the disposition of the motorcycle and that it was James's responsibility to have addressed the matter. Sandra further argued that James had conceded that Sandra could not provide the motorcycle. On rebuttal, James pointed out that although he had"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2726000 Extracted reporter citation: 766 N.E.2d 1240. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2726000 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue The marriage of Katherine Ryan and Larry Janovsky was dissolved in 1991 pursuant to a settlement agreement that included a provision dividing Janovsky's pension. Over twenty years later, Ryan presented a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for Janovsky's signature. Janovsky refused to sign, and Ryan filed a Verified Petition for Contempt and Rule to Show Cause, alleging Janovsky was in contempt of the parties' settlement agreement for failing to sign the QDRO. Ryan appeals the trial court's denial of her petition, raising one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nt until an action is brought for a determination of the amount of unpaid and delinquent installments. Kuhn v. Kuhn, 273 Ind. 67, 70, 402 N.E.2d 989, 991 (1980). Similarly, the settlement agreement provides that Ryan will begin receiving her portion of the retirement benefits when Janovsky begins receiving his. Presumably, these benefits will be paid in monthly installments. When an obligation is payable in installments, the statute of limitations runs as to each installment as it becomes due. Id. at 71-72, 402 N.E.2d at 991. The applicable statute of limitations2 would therefore not begin to run until the date of the first"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 2-9108-DR-805 December 5, 2013 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue The marriage of Katherine Ryan and Larry Janovsky was dissolved in 1991 pursuant to a settlement agreement that included a provision dividing Janovsky's pension. Over twenty years later, Ryan presented a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for Janovsky's signature. Janovsky refused to sign, and Ryan filed a Verified Petition for Contempt and Rule to Show Cause, alleging Janovsky was in contempt of the parties' settlement agreement for failing to sign the QDRO. Ryan appeals the trial court's de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e78a9a88-c2fd-45ab-a703-636dbf01c34c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2726000-2726000","title":"CourtListener opinion 2726000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"766 N.E.2d 1240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s contained in a dissolution of marriage decree may be enforced by contempt, among other remedies. II. Timeliness of QDRO To meet the legislative goal of regulating and protecting pension plan funds, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") provides that benefits may not be assigned or alienated. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d); Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Because this caused problems in domestic relations settings where ERISA-governed pensions had to be divided, the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 amended ERISA to create an express statutory exception to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2727378 Extracted case name: J.I. v. J.H. Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 647. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727378 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: wrongful death account) to acquire the residence. 8 $32,242.00 from Account **2373. He also pointed out that there had been a $4,000.00 mathematical error in his favor because jewelry awarded to Wife had been over-valued by that amount. Husband sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $113,083.50 to effect an equal division of assets (including those that had been set off to Wife in which he believed he was entitled to share). Finally, he sought an order that Wife be required to transfer $87,000.00 cash from the Raymond James Account **2373 and $3,923.00 from the Raymond James Account **6156 to effect the actual dist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: irrevocable trust, and investment funds. It was determined that Husband's interest in a revocable trust and his contingent interest in a residuary trust for the care of his mother were not divisible assets. The dissolution court declined to setoff to Wife retirement accounts initially funded prior to the marriage. The court's stated intent was that a near-equal division of the marital estate, after setoff of inherited property, be effected. Wife was awarded possession of the marital residence and was ordered to pay Husband $105,000.00 for his share of the equity. On December 8, 2011, Husband filed a motion to correct erro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): esponded by clarifying its intent to setoff inherited assets to Wife, \"correct[ing] mathematical errors regarding the jewelry and the Raymond James Freedom Account #2373\" and ordering that $57,371.00 be transferred from Raymond James Account **9188 (Wife's 401(k)) to Husband, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (App. 24.) Husband filed a request for clarification, contending that the dissolution court had failed to address the request for an immediate transfer of the $87,000.00 remaining from the wrongful death settlement (allegedly in Wife's control although awarded to Husband). Wife also filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da08fcc5-a1d2-46be-a522-a8c7195dcc4d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727378-2727378","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727378","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 647","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: death account) to acquire the residence. 8 $32,242.00 from Account **2373. He also pointed out that there had been a $4,000.00 mathematical error in his favor because jewelry awarded to Wife had been over-valued by that amount. Husband sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $113,083.50 to effect an equal division of assets (including those that had been set off to Wife in which he believed he was entitled to share). Finally, he sought an order that Wife be required to transfer $87,000.00 cash from the Raymond James Account **2373 and $3,923.00 from the Raymond James Account **6156 to effect the actual dist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2727384 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rife. Extracted reporter citation: 561 N.E.2d 809. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727384 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ble William A. Alexa, Judge The Honorable Katherine R. Forbes, Magistrate Cause No. 64D02-9404-DR-1058 May 29, 2013 OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Jill Bastone (f/k/a Jill Finfrock) (\"Mother\") requested that the Porter Superior Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") ordering that funds in the retirement account of her former husband, Mark Finfrock (\"Father\"), be applied to satisfy Father's substantial child support arrearage. After initially granting the request, the trial court rescinded the QDRO and ordered Mother to pay attorney fees to Father. Mother now appeals and argues: (1) that the federal Fair De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: te Cause No. 64D02-9404-DR-1058 May 29, 2013 OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Jill Bastone (f/k/a Jill Finfrock) (\"Mother\") requested that the Porter Superior Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") ordering that funds in the retirement account of her former husband, Mark Finfrock (\"Father\"), be applied to satisfy Father's substantial child support arrearage. After initially granting the request, the trial court rescinded the QDRO and ordered Mother to pay attorney fees to Father. Mother now appeals and argues: (1) that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is inapplicable to the pres"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Mother next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to issue a QDRO attaching Father's retirement account. As this court noted in Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), \"It is well established that, under certain circumstances, a pension may be attached or garnished as a means of satisfying a support arrearage.\" Domestic relations orders concerning pension benefits must comply with the requirements for a QDRO, otherwise they are preempted by ERISA. Id. Thus, pension funds may, under some circumstances, be garnished or attached by means of a QDRO in order to satisfy a past-due support o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83ea9ff4-a68a-4988-a831-6c71fc3b49ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727384-2727384","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727384","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.E.2d 809","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: hed that, under certain circumstances, a pension may be attached or garnished as a means of satisfying a support arrearage.\" Domestic relations orders concerning pension benefits must comply with the requirements for a QDRO, otherwise they are preempted by ERISA. Id. Thus, pension funds may, under some circumstances, be garnished or attached by means of a QDRO in order to satisfy a past-due support obligation. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Rife, 529 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Iowa 1995)). ERISA was not intended to be \"a vehicle for avoidance of family support obligations, and nothing in the ERISA statutes prohibits ‘in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2727742 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 740 N.E.2d 582. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727742 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Court with a present value of the pension benefits of [Husband], it appears that [he] will receive substantial pension benefits as compared to those of [Wife]. 28. [D]ue to the difference in the pensions of the parties and in order to avoid utilizing a [qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\")] while still achieving an equal divi[s]ion of personal property, [Wife] should receive $5,000.00 more from the equity in the real estate than [Husband] should receive. Appellant's App. pp. 6-8. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the marital home be sold and its proceeds divided as follows: B. The mortgage shall be completely paid."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: home repair costs during the pendency of the dissolution. We conclude that the record supports the court's finding on and determination of this issue. Wife further claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $5000.00 of Husband's pension benefits. Because neither party presented evidence of the pension's value, we are unable to determine whether this award effectuates an even distribution of the marital estate, and we remand for further findings. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Wife an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: h a present value of the pension benefits of [Husband], it appears that [he] will receive substantial pension benefits as compared to those of [Wife]. 28. [D]ue to the difference in the pensions of the parties and in order to avoid utilizing a [qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\")] while still achieving an equal divi[s]ion of personal property, [Wife] should receive $5,000.00 more from the equity in the real estate than [Husband] should receive. Appellant's App. pp. 6-8. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the marital home be sold and its proceeds divided as follows: B. The mortgage shall be completely paid."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f3c2f65-ec67-4f29-bc39-5be04ff85a47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727742-2727742","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 582","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the findings. More specifically, the trial court has broad discretion in determining the value of property in a dissolution action, and we will disturb its valuation only for an abuse of this discretion. We will reverse the trial court's decision as to a valuation date only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. As the party challenging the trial court's property division, Wife must overcome a strong presumption that the trial court complied with the statutory guidelines. 6 Id. at 583-84 (citations and quotations omitted). \"The standard for reviewing the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ef9cc4e-b8e4-483c-9707-a00821f5103a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"777 N.E.2d 41","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2727798 Extracted reporter citation: 777 N.E.2d 41. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727798 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ef9cc4e-b8e4-483c-9707-a00821f5103a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"777 N.E.2d 41","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ef9cc4e-b8e4-483c-9707-a00821f5103a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"777 N.E.2d 41","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: riage and Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement. Wife's interest in the Husband's National Guard Retirement shall be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (App. at 16.) On December 16, 2011, Husband filed a petition to clarify the retirement funds due to Wife. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 24, 2012, and entered an order on March 12, awarding Wife $1,376.39 of Husband's retirement fund, an amount offset by Husband's overpayment of child support. On April 9, Wife filed a m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ef9cc4e-b8e4-483c-9707-a00821f5103a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"777 N.E.2d 41","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rry Goff (Husband) as part of their 1997 divorce order. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Husband and Wife were married on November 25, 1989 and divorced on August 28, 1997. As part of the divorce order, the trial court determined: Husband has a retirement plan associated with his twenty-five years with the National Guard. The Court finds that the parties were married for seven and one-half (7 1/2) years. Based upon the length of their marriage and Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ef9cc4e-b8e4-483c-9707-a00821f5103a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727798-2727798","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"777 N.E.2d 41","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement. Wife's interest in the Husband's National Guard Retirement shall be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (App. at 16.) On December 16, 2011, Husband filed a petition to clarify the retirement funds due to Wife. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 24, 2012, and entered an order on March 12, awarding Wife $1,376.39 of Husband's retirement fund, an amount offset by Husband's overpayment of child support. On April 9, Wife filed a m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf213835-e100-47b5-83a3-403f92ec18b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"956 N.E.2d 1084","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2727934 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dean. Extracted reporter citation: 956 N.E.2d 1084. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727934 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf213835-e100-47b5-83a3-403f92ec18b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"956 N.E.2d 1084","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf213835-e100-47b5-83a3-403f92ec18b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"956 N.E.2d 1084","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r personal property located at this residence. *** [] John Hancock Structured Settlement. The Wife is currently the owner of a John Hancock Structured Settlement. The parties agree that the Husband shall receive 25% of the Structured Settlement through a QDRO. Appellant's App. p. 28. On January 10, 2011, Husband filed a petition requesting that the trial court find Wife in contempt for 1) failing to make the monthly payments on the Antioch Road home, which resulted in foreclosure proceedings, 2) failing to pay the debt owed on the 475 W. County Road property, 3) failing to remit 25% of her annuity payments"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf213835-e100-47b5-83a3-403f92ec18b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2727934-2727934","title":"CourtListener opinion 2727934","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"956 N.E.2d 1084","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): all respects. Affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3 Wife's citation to Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) in support of her argument is unavailing. In that case, the trial court considered Father's early withdrawal from his 401(k) as income for the purpose of calculating child support. Although our court concluded that the funds constituted income \"within the meaning of the\" Guidelines, we held that under the unique facts of the case, the trial court erred when it utilized \"Father's return for the early withdrawal of his 401(k) account in calculating his child support obligation.\" Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8815c-b000-4b6e-9ca0-b39d2421ffb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2728704 Docket: COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728704 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8815c-b000-4b6e-9ca0-b39d2421ffb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8815c-b000-4b6e-9ca0-b39d2421ffb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ll be divided, with wife to receive ½ the value thereof as of the date of the entrance of the Final Decree of Dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division, including but not limited to any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Husband's FERS account shall be divided, with wife to receive ½ of the amount in said account as of the date of the entrance of 1 The original agreement is not in our record but this provision was read out loud at a hearing by defendant's attorney and plaintiff testified that this was what the separation agreement stated. There is no dispute ab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8815c-b000-4b6e-9ca0-b39d2421ffb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n 2008, plaintiff and defendant were divorced in Kentucky by a decree of dissolution of marriage which incorporated a separation agreement. The separation agreement, entered on 8 -2- October 2008, included a provision regarding the division of defendant's retirement benefits as follows: Parties agree that wife is entitled to one half of the husband's retirement account, which specifically is TSP and FERS accounts, as of the date of the entrance of the final decree of dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division including but not limited to any QDROs.1 Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8815c-b000-4b6e-9ca0-b39d2421ffb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728704-2728704","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728704","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ided, with wife to receive ½ the value thereof as of the date of the entrance of the Final Decree of Dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division, including but not limited to any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Husband's FERS account shall be divided, with wife to receive ½ of the amount in said account as of the date of the entrance of 1 The original agreement is not in our record but this provision was read out loud at a hearing by defendant's attorney and plaintiff testified that this was what the separation agreement stated. There is no dispute ab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1af0c885-cd21-40a7-980b-a286f344a1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2728792 Docket: COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728792 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1af0c885-cd21-40a7-980b-a286f344a1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1af0c885-cd21-40a7-980b-a286f344a1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enforced through the contempt powers of the court. On 31 August 2009, plaintiff Jeness J. Campbell filed for absolute divorce from defendant Melvin E. Campbell. That same day, plaintiff filed a separate action for a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").1 On 15 October 2009, defendant answered and filed a pro se answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, alimony and attorneys' fees. Although defendant captioned his answer and counterclaim in response to plaintiff's complaint for absolute divorce, he listed on his response the file number as being 09 CVD 173334, which does not match the fil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1af0c885-cd21-40a7-980b-a286f344a1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: counterclaim was meritless because defendant had already agreed to a mediated settlement agreement resolving 1 Plaintiff's QDRO action, 09 CVD 17334, sought an order regarding a $25,000.00 lump sum distribution to defendant from plaintiff's Duke University retirement plan. On 19 February 2010, the trial court issued an order granting plaintiff's QDRO action. -3- all issues. On 3 December 2009, plaintiff filed an affidavit of judicial assignment and notice of hearing requesting an expedited hearing date for her motions to dismiss, to strike, and for Rule 11 sanctions. On 3 February 2010, a memorandum of mediated settlem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1af0c885-cd21-40a7-980b-a286f344a1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728792-2728792","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: A. Prather, and Sandlin Family Law Group, by Debra A. Griffiths, for plaintiff-appellee. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Michelle D. Connell, for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for equitable distribution and alimony, and can incorporate those claims into a judgment for absolute divorce by the consent of both parties. A separation agreement, once -2- incorporated by the trial court into a divorce judgment, can be enforced through the contempt powers of the court. On 31 August 2009, plaintiff Jeness J. Campbell filed for absolute divorce from defendant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c68884a-13c3-4cd8-888b-0b2264bd55ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728823","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2728823 Extracted case name: D.B. v. M.B.V. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728823 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c68884a-13c3-4cd8-888b-0b2264bd55ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728823","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c68884a-13c3-4cd8-888b-0b2264bd55ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728823","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ded as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wife] is to prepare and file the QDRO within 60 days of this Order. Id. at 100 (formatting altered) (emphasis added). Modification of the agreement was only permitted upon the parties' joint, written consent, although issues related to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c68884a-13c3-4cd8-888b-0b2264bd55ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728823","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ol[-]sponsored extracurricular activities, and agree to divide said mutually agreeable expenses equally.\" Id. at 99. The parties' pensions, including Husband's Public Employees' Retirement Fund (\"PERF\") annuity account, were to be divided as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c68884a-13c3-4cd8-888b-0b2264bd55ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728823-2728823","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728823","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ty account, were to be divided as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [\"QDRO\"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wife] is to prepare and file the QDRO within 60 days of this Order. Id. at 100 (formatting altered) (emphasis added). Modification of the agreement was only permitted upon the parties' joint, written consent, although issues rela"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2728873 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Carnes. Extracted reporter citation: 911 N.E.2d 660. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728873 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: reliance on this court's decision in Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265, for the purposes of establishing that his T.R. 60(B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 8"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: (B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148 (noting that relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) is available only upon a showing of exceptional ci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ve, did not discuss the timeliness of motions under T.R. 60(B)(8). The questions of whether a T.R. 60(B)(8) motion was timely filed and whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying relief 7 employer declared bankruptcy and, as a result, husband's pension benefits were significantly reduced. The husband filed a motion for relief from judgment asking the trial court to modify the QDRO to reflect the change in circumstances. The trial court granted the motion, and this court affirmed. In Beike v. Beike, however, the court did not address whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time, presumably b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16c7a03-d2f3-4aec-870e-e1abe6a8e93c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2728873-2728873","title":"CourtListener opinion 2728873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"911 N.E.2d 660","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on this court's decision in Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265, for the purposes of establishing that his T.R. 60(B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 8"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2729862 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Church. Extracted reporter citation: 927 N.E.2d 926. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2729862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ing $45.00 H. Edward Jones $21,488.00 $21,488.00 [401(k)] I. Husband‟s Fort $6,167.00 Financial Accounts J. Wife‟s Edward Jones $4,865.00 Account K. AXA Equitable LIP $1,274.00 (Marital Portion) L. Wife‟s Fort Financial $429.00 Accounts M. Husband‟s DANA QDRO QDRO Corp. Pension (Marital Share) TOTAL ASSETS $181,849.00 $37,627.00 DEBT N. Fort Financial FCU $54,352.00 Mortgage O. Fort Financial FCU $18,770.00 Fusion P. Partner 1st FCU $3,586.00 5 Taurus Q. Cap One Card $1,971.00 R. Sears Card $5,121.00 S. Kohls Card $332.00 TOTAL DEBTS $75,093.00 $9,039.00 T. Net Assets $106,756.00 $28,588.00 U. E"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ns.\"). Nevertheless, Wife argues that the error was harmless because it results in an award of $0. We have described the coverture fraction formula as follows: The \"coverture fraction\" formula is one method a trial court may use to distribute pension or retirement plan benefits to the earning and non-earning spouses. Under this methodology, the value of the retirement plan is multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the period of time during which the marriage existed (while pension rights were accruing) and the denominator is the total period of time during which pension rights accrued. In re Marriage of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: its discretion by not calculating and awarding to Husband the equity that he had in the marital residence before the marriage; (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error by awarding Wife fifty percent of the coverture portion of Husband‟s Dana pension; (3) whether the trial court committed reversible error by removing certain assets from the marital pot; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife‟s attorney‟s fees. We conclude that Husband has waived the first issue because he did not present evidence concerning the amount of equity that he ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3650cc16-7669-45d1-ae10-b812ead556d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729862-2729862","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 N.E.2d 926","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ,048.00 $9,571.00 Accumulated during marriage C. Fort Financial IRA $401.00 (Marital Portion) D. Nishiwak[a]/Enveritus $3,868.00 E. Modern Woodman $3,797.00 F. Star Joint Checking $35.00 G. Star Joint Checking $45.00 H. Edward Jones $21,488.00 $21,488.00 [401(k)] I. Husband‟s Fort $6,167.00 Financial Accounts J. Wife‟s Edward Jones $4,865.00 Account K. AXA Equitable LIP $1,274.00 (Marital Portion) L. Wife‟s Fort Financial $429.00 Accounts M. Husband‟s DANA QDRO QDRO Corp. Pension (Marital Share) TOTAL ASSETS $181,849.00 $37,627.00 DEBT N. Fort Financial FCU $54,352.00 Mortgage O. Fort Financial FCU $18,77"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2729895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 834 N.E.2d 1091. Docket: moving is properly a high priority for our trial be. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2729895 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: newly discovered evidence. On December 21, 2011, the trial court denied Husband's request to submit the allegedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging \"an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund (\"PERF\")] pension.\" Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested finding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: egedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging \"an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund (\"PERF\")] pension.\" Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), which p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: covered evidence. On December 21, 2011, the trial court denied Husband's request to submit the allegedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging \"an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund (\"PERF\")] pension.\" Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested finding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d853059b-8c86-4d36-8d56-988e2130da27","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2729895-2729895","title":"CourtListener opinion 2729895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"moving is properly a high priority for our trial be","extracted_reporter_citation":"834 N.E.2d 1091","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 95), trans. denied (1996); see also Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (reviewing division of property for abuse of discretion, we consider only evidence favorable to judgment). In addition, the party challenging the trial court's property division must overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the appropriate statutory guidelines. Wells, 679 N.E.2d at 916. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d at 504-05. \"Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow for a different conclusion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.\" In re Marriage of Nickels, 8"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2730212 Extracted case name: R.R.F. v. L.L.F. Extracted reporter citation: 754 N.E.2d 619. Docket: of factors that a trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730212 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: not see how the trial court erred in failing to address an issue upon which 33 Alexander presented no evidence. Second, although Alexander proposed to the trial court that Natalia receive a percentage of his pension payments upon his retirement through a QDRO, he also assigned the entire 401(k) account solely to himself. Thus, Alexander sought to preclude Natalia from receiving any of the 401(k) account funds that accumulated during the marriage. The trial court rejected that attempt and instead sought to equitably divide the property by granting the 401(k) to Natalia and the pension to Alexander, which had"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the St. Petersburg flat before calculating the 60/40 split. Excluding the flat, the trial court found the net value of the marital estate to be $266,889.30, with Natalia to receive $160,133.58 total in assets and Alexander $106,755.72. With respect to the retirement accounts and as part of the total assets, the trial court awarded Alexander the full amount of his Lilly pension that he is due to receive upon retirement and awarded Natalia the value of the 8 401(k) at the time of separation, or $82,920. In order to effect the 60/40 split, the trial court ordered Alexander to make an equalization payment of $56,056,84. It a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n on July 21, 2010. Alexander represented himself at this hearing. At the outset, the parties stipulated that joint physical and legal custody of V.N. should be continued. The parties also stipulated that as of the date of separation, Alexander had a Lilly pension currently worth $80,373 and that his 401(k) account was worth $82,920.1 During this hearing, Natalia requested that Alexander be required to pay $198 per week in child support and that she be named the custodial parent of V.N. for purposes of controlled expenses and assignment of the parenting time credit. However, Natalia did not submit a child support"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af92ad03-fb42-4eae-b375-d813af31b1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730212-2730212","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of factors that a trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 N.E.2d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): int where he was earning over $100,000 annually. However, the available income to the Nikolayev family remained constant during this time, because Alexander directed that any additional amount earned through raises be saved and/or diverted to his voluntary 401(k) account through Lilly, and the money was not spent on current family expenses. By 2010, Alexander was contributing over $1,700 per month to his 401(k). The net effect of these 401(k) and savings contributions was that the amount available for current family expenses remained constant at approximately $51,000 per year throughout the marriage. Alexander"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2730337 Extracted reporter citation: 952 N.E.2d 744. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730337 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ioner is granted and awarded as Petitioner's sole property, free and clear of any and all claims which Respondent may have therein or thereto, all of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits subject to Respondent receiving by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order fifty percent (50%) of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits which have accrued as of August 28, 2006, in the form of an annuity for Respondent's life time and payable at Petitioner's earliest eligible retirement age. Appellant's App. at ii, Trial Court Order at 1. Paragraph 69 of the Decree states: Respondent is granted and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 2008. Paragraph 68 of the Dissolution Decree states: Petitioner is granted and awarded as Petitioner's sole property, free and clear of any and all claims which Respondent may have therein or thereto, all of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits subject to Respondent receiving by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order fifty percent (50%) of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits which have accrued as of August 28, 2006, in the form of an annuity for Respondent's life time and payable at Petitioner's earliest eligible retirement age. Appellant's App. at ii"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 130, 1134 n. 8 (Ind. 1998) (citing I.R.C. § 414(p) (1993)). QDROs are authorized under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. Id. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984, P.L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1433 (1984), amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., to authorize state courts to order the distribution of pension benefits in divorce actions pursuant to a QDRO. Id. The facts of this case can be summed up in simple terms. The parties' dissolution decree provided for an equal division of pension benefits. However, an admitted mistake by the trial court in not entering a QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5355d56d-ee07-461c-b01f-5cc13c6987e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730337-2730337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"952 N.E.2d 744","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lations Orders (\"QDROs\") should be \"shared interest\" or \"separate interest\" QDROs. Id. On March 4, 2009, the trial court determined that the QDROs should be separate interest QDROs and entered a QDRO with respect to Husband's pension benefits, with Wife as alternate payee. For unknown reasons, on that same date, the trial court did not enter a second QDRO with respect to Wife's pension benefits, with Husband as alternate payee. Pursuant to the entered QDRO, Wife began receiving benefits from Husband's pension on October 1, 2009.1 On April 5, 2010, Wife filed a motion to clarify specifically noting that a separate QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2730909 Extracted case name: L.F.R. v. R.A.R. Extracted reporter citation: 717 N.E.2d 1249. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730909 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: value of a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested \"to try to correct an injustice\" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested \"to try to correct an injustice\" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): (3), and (4). We have addressed the grant of relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) in the context of a dissolution decree in Case v. Case, 794 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (where a portion of the decree could not be executed as written because the value of a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested \"to try to correct an injustice\" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), tran"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9865739f-fc5f-4821-b54c-2c63a8fe088e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2730909-2730909","title":"CourtListener opinion 2730909","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 N.E.2d 1249","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested \"to try to correct an injustice\" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2732037 Extracted reporter citation: 40 A.3d 917. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732037 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l 7-389, District of Columbia Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988, at 1 (October 27, 1988) (emphasis in original). Under this law, however, a former spouse is not entitled to a survivor annuity unless a \"qualifying court order\" (sometimes referred to as a \"QDRO\") \"by its terms awards to a former spouse . . . a survivor annuity.\" D.C. Code § 1-529.02 (c) (2001). 6 Modeled after a federal statute enacted in 1978, the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 requires the Mayor to \"comply with any qualifying court order that is issued prior to the employee‟s retirement.\" D.C. Code § 1-529.03 (b) (2001). The Mayor i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or summary affirmance on behalf of the federal appellees. Lonie Anne Hassel and Julia E. Zuckerman filed a motion for summary affirmance on behalf of appellees District of Columbia Retirement Board and District of Columbia Police Officers‟ and Firefighters‟ Retirement Plan. Raymond S. Dietrich filed an opposition to the motions for summary affirmance on behalf of appellant.1 1 These motions and the opposition were filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties have filed a joint statement advising that these papers and the record in the United States District Court provide t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: either the original federal statute nor the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 explicitly addressed whether court orders issued after the death of an employee who has not yet retired are enforceable. Noting this lack of clarity, Congress amended federal pension law in 1986. A summary of the amendment identified the statutory \"inconsistency\" under which \"a court order could be changed following the death of an employee who has not yet retired[,]\" but could not be \"amended after the employee‟s retirement[.]\" 131 Cong. Rec. S18098 (daily ed. Dec. 19, 1985) (section-by-section summary of Senate committee amendmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071370aa-467c-4afe-ba58-0c82e391b5c2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732037-2732037","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732037","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"40 A.3d 917","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ted in writing by such member[.]\" D.C. Code § 5-706 (c) (2008 Supp.). As the law indicates, a designated beneficiary may only receive this lump sum payment of retirement contributions when a plan member dies without leaving survivors eligible to receive a survivor annuity. B. The Spouse Equity Amendment Act Noting that \"[c]ourt orders purporting to award a survivor annuity to a former spouse are currently unenforceable[,]\" the Council of the District of Columbia adopted the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 in order \"to conform the District‟s remaining retirement systems as much as possible with the changes made i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2732060 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732060 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: few months later, Wife moved out of the marital residence. On April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to \"provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date].\" (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and $691,729 to Husband. In order to effectuate an equal division of the 3 marital estate, the trial court—after deducting $5530 for Wife's contribution to their child's college expenses—ordered Husband to pay $246,585 to Wife by executing a QDRO on his retirement account. In calculating and dividing the marital estate, the trial court included the value of Husband's retirement account, as well as the annuity savings portion of Wife's ISTRF 1 and another small retirement fund in her name. At the time of the final hearing, Wife had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. Wife's prognosis was grim, and sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to \"provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date].\" (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, Husband filed a motion for relief from judgment. He asserted that the pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad2f1478-33d0-4c20-a26f-00a4af25d844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732060-2732060","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732060","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: issolve their marriage. A few months later, Wife moved out of the marital residence. On April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to \"provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date].\" (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2732989 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Micheli. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732989 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall keep the SRIP as his sole property.\" ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans, i.e. the pensions and the SRIP account. It appears that, after awarding John his entire SRIP account, the court intended to maintain the 50/50 division of the benefit plans by awarding Ellen a corresponding amount from other assets, which the court can specify on remand. Regardless, the intended 50/50 divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney fees, but it la"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: irement plans (benefit plans). In paragraph 2, the trial court stated, \"[t]he value of John's SRIP [supplemental retirement income plan] account as of 6/28/12 shall be divided 50/50 by way of an additional/greater percentage award of either John's Allstate pension or Allstate 401(k) distribution to [Ellen]. John shall keep the SRIP as his sole property.\" ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95f2af3e-0cbe-4ae7-8e08-4191cd4ac08f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2732989-2732989","title":"CourtListener opinion 2732989","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ed stock units (RSUs). On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"827d8f58-c4c7-49be-a163-8f5ae410da24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"892 A.2d 964","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2733146 Extracted case name: COURTNEY ROBACZYNSKI v. MARC A. ROBACZYNSKI. Extracted reporter citation: 892 A.2d 964. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2733146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"827d8f58-c4c7-49be-a163-8f5ae410da24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"892 A.2d 964","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"827d8f58-c4c7-49be-a163-8f5ae410da24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"892 A.2d 964","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he plaintiff's attorney's fees. Additionally, the court required the defendant to pay 50 percent of the costs of the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence until it was sold.2 The defendant was also responsible for 75 percent of the costs of preparing a qualified domestic relations order to effect the equitable division of the parties' bank accounts, deferred compensation accounts, and restricted stock. Neither party appealed from the judgment. On May 7, 2013, the defendant filed a motion for modification of the unallocated family support3 and the other financial orders in the dissolution decree, includ- ing the orders regarding the health"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"827d8f58-c4c7-49be-a163-8f5ae410da24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733146-2733146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"892 A.2d 964","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ff's attorney's fees. Additionally, the court required the defendant to pay 50 percent of the costs of the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence until it was sold.2 The defendant was also responsible for 75 percent of the costs of preparing a qualified domestic relations order to effect the equitable division of the parties' bank accounts, deferred compensation accounts, and restricted stock. Neither party appealed from the judgment. On May 7, 2013, the defendant filed a motion for modification of the unallocated family support3 and the other financial orders in the dissolution decree, includ- ing the orders regarding the health"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2733181 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 681. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2733181 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f Franklin County vs. ) ) Honorable David L. Hoven BETH A. LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen (\"Jennifer\") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen (\"Frank\").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen (\"Beth\"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen (\"Jennifer\") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen (\"Frank\").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen (\"Beth\"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court lacked authority to enter the QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: entered the QDRO. Jennifer further asserts that the separation agreement contained no terms evidencing the parties‟ intention that the separation agreement be considered a QDRO, and that 1 A QDRO is an order that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee‟s right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a participant plan [.]\" Seal v. Raw, 954 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (Supp.1997)). 2 To avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended by the Court. the QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e2bb9fc-6a2d-4fd2-8120-ee247c754fc4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2733181-2733181","title":"CourtListener opinion 2733181","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"954 S.W.2d 681","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: County vs. ) ) Honorable David L. Hoven BETH A. LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen (\"Jennifer\") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen (\"Frank\").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen (\"Beth\"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffbee303-4959-41e7-8c57-68d8e0ead700","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273","title":"CourtListener opinion 2734273","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15737-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2734273 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 15737-12S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2734273 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffbee303-4959-41e7-8c57-68d8e0ead700","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273","title":"CourtListener opinion 2734273","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15737-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffbee303-4959-41e7-8c57-68d8e0ead700","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273","title":"CourtListener opinion 2734273","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15737-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat they [would] end up with equal dollars.\" (Emphasis added.) The stipulation of settlement provided: The value of Mr. Laremore's IRA's, over Mrs. Laremore's, is $77,730.48. The agreement is that she will get half of that sum for -4- $38,865.24 via a QDRO[2] being placed on Mr. Laremore's traditional IRA so that that amount will be transferred to her and the end result is that the parties will have equally shared these retirement accounts. [Emphasis added.] During a brief discussion held off the record, the parties realized that their respective numbers for the various retirement accounts did not preci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffbee303-4959-41e7-8c57-68d8e0ead700","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273","title":"CourtListener opinion 2734273","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15737-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: their joint bank accounts equally, with Mr. Laremore agreeing to give Mrs. Laremore 50% of the funds in a bank account he held individually. Also in the stipulation of settlement, and pertinent to this case, the couple agreed to \"divide[] equally\" their retirement accounts, \"so that the net result is that they [would] end up with equal dollars.\" (Emphasis added.) The stipulation of settlement provided: The value of Mr. Laremore's IRA's, over Mrs. Laremore's, is $77,730.48. The agreement is that she will get half of that sum for -4- $38,865.24 via a QDRO[2] being placed on Mr. Laremore's traditional IRA so that that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffbee303-4959-41e7-8c57-68d8e0ead700","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2734273-2734273","title":"CourtListener opinion 2734273","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15737-12S","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a little tweaking on the number, we will, but the concept of what we're doing is there. [Emphasis added.] Divorce decree The stipulation of settlement was incorporated by reference into the divorce decree, in which it was-- 2 A \"QDRO\" is a \"qualified domestic relations order\" as defined in section 414(p), which is issued in the context of a divorce or separation. A QDRO permits a portion of a tax-advantaged retirement plan, such as an individual retirement account (\"IRA\"), see sec. 408, to be transferred from one divorcing spouse to the other without the transferring spouse's incurring a tax liability on the amount transferred."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2735575 Docket: 13-DR-0154. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2735575 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the survivorship benefits, finding that \"the Magistrate erred in finding that [Ray] was entitled to a survivor benefit with regard to [Tracy's] military pension.\" (Id. at p. 2-3). The entry went on to list a series of orders, including the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") which \"should provide a half-interest in the pension to Ray H. Martinez, Jr. based upon the dates above.\" (Id. at p. 3). However, none of these orders specified that the QDRO should not include survivorship benefits for Ray. -3- Case No. 13-14-07 {¶5} Another entry, captioned \"Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce\" (\"divorce decree\"), was als"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ties for the portion that was acquired during the marriage. {¶3} Tracy filed three objections on December 9, 2013. The first objected to the \"Magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law that [Ray] is entitled to a one-half portion of the military retirement benefits of the military pension of -2- Case No. 13-14-07 [Tracy].\" (Docket No. 24, p. 1). The second objection stated \"Accordingly, Defendant objects to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to same, as contained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Magistrate's decision.\" Id. The third objected to any award of survivorship"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: se No. 13-14-07 ROGERS, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Tracy Martinez (\"Tracy\"), appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections to the magistrate's order that divided her military pension equally with Plaintiff-Appellee, Ray Martinez, Jr. (\"Ray\") as part of a divorce decree. On appeal, Tracy argues that the trial court failed to adequately explain the division. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. {¶2} On August 31, 1987, Tracy joined the United States Air Force. She married Ray on Fe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4ddac78-5b53-4c49-b537-7fd6653d1e3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2735575-2735575","title":"CourtListener opinion 2735575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-DR-0154","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: orship benefits, finding that \"the Magistrate erred in finding that [Ray] was entitled to a survivor benefit with regard to [Tracy's] military pension.\" (Id. at p. 2-3). The entry went on to list a series of orders, including the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") which \"should provide a half-interest in the pension to Ray H. Martinez, Jr. based upon the dates above.\" (Id. at p. 3). However, none of these orders specified that the QDRO should not include survivorship benefits for Ray. -3- Case No. 13-14-07 {¶5} Another entry, captioned \"Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce\" (\"divorce decree\"), was als"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bc9a456-268e-4cde-8435-dcb215170b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"931 F.2d 1544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2738355 Extracted reporter citation: 931 F.2d 1544. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bc9a456-268e-4cde-8435-dcb215170b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"931 F.2d 1544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bc9a456-268e-4cde-8435-dcb215170b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"931 F.2d 1544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), was divorced from his former spouse in 1997. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 9-16 (divorce decree). In conjunction with the divorce decree, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) providing that the appellant's former spouse would be entitled to a portion of his retirement benefits and to be treated as a surviving spouse if the appellant predeceased her. Id. at 18-21. Upon his retirement, the appellant began receiving annuity payments on September 4, 2011; however, OPM erroneously omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bc9a456-268e-4cde-8435-dcb215170b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"931 F.2d 1544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n 1997. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 9-16 (divorce decree). In conjunction with the divorce decree, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) providing that the appellant's former spouse would be entitled to a portion of his retirement benefits and to be treated as a surviving spouse if the appellant predeceased her. Id. at 18-21. Upon his retirement, the appellant began receiving annuity payments on September 4, 2011; however, OPM erroneously omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at 5, 25, 40. In 2013, OPM corrected the omission and notified the appellant that, pursuant to the QDRO,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bc9a456-268e-4cde-8435-dcb215170b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738355-2738355","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"931 F.2d 1544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at 5, 25, 40. In 2013, OPM corrected the omission and notified the appellant that, pursuant to the QDRO, his former spouse was entitled to a retroactive apportionment, monthly annuity payment, and former spouse survivor annuity benefits if he predeceased her. Id. at 25. The appellant requested reconsideration of OPM's findings related to the court-ordered apportionment and former spouse survivor annuity benefit. See id. at 5. OPM affirmed its initial decision, id. at 5-8, and the appellant filed an appeal of the reconsideration decision to the Board, IAF, Tab 1. 3 ¶3 On app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2738512 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of SHARRON STEED and JAMES STEED. CANDICE STEED. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738512 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d & Brown, John R. Szewczyk and Marc E. Denison for Respondent. -ooOoo- Candice Steed, as administrator of the estate of Sharron Steed, sought an order determining that she and her siblings were entitled to their deceased mother's interest in their father's retirement benefits, an interest that was established in the judgment of dissolution of the marriage of James and Sharron Steed. Rejecting James's argument that Sharron's interest terminated upon her death, the family law court granted Candice's petition and ordered that Sharron's interest be paid to her beneficiaries. James appeals from the order granting Candice's petition"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t aside the DRO because it did not meet the requirements of CalPERS. Candice subsequently became administrator of Sharron's estate. In probate court, she filed a petition seeking an order determining that Sharron held a community property interest in James's pension plan and that she was able to bequeath that interest to her children. The parties stipulated to the relevant facts and exhibits, and the probate court heard the matter. Candice argued that James was collaterally estopped by the September 2, 2009, order from relitigating the determination that Sharron could designate beneficiaries to receive her interest in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . Rejecting James's argument that Sharron's interest terminated upon her death, the family law court granted Candice's petition and ordered that Sharron's interest be paid to her beneficiaries. James appeals from the order granting Candice's petition and the domestic relations order implementing that decision.1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 26, 1998, the family law court entered a judgment of dissolution ending the marriage of James and Sharron Steed. The judgment included a provision that \"James Steed's retirement/deferred compensation benefits from employment during marriage shall be divided between the parties by the tim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04965d9e-a043-4e80-ad0a-2e1b99c3c1d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738512-2738512","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738512","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: or and death benefits, including, but not limited to, any of the following: \"(1) Order the disposition of any retirement benefits payable upon or after the death of either party in a manner consistent with Section 2550. 8. \"(2) Order a party to elect a survivor benefit annuity or other similar election for the benefit of the other party, as specified by the court, in any case in which a retirement plan provides for such an election, provided that no court shall order a retirement plan to provide increased benefits determined on the basis of actuarial value. \"(3) Upon the agreement of the nonemployee spouse, order th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2738841 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID PAUL WALKER AND JEANETTE RENEE WALKER Upon the Petition of DAVID PAUL. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 13-1310. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738841 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y has been awarded to David, the court finds that he should be responsible for those debts listed in [Jeanette's] financial affidavit [$10,321.96].\" The court found the Vanguard account to be a marital asset and assigned it to David. 6 The court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with respect to David's Tier II benefits. David was also ordered to pay $2150 of Jeanette's attorney's fees. Finally, David was ordered to pay Jeanette an equalization payment of $20,000. The court awarded the HHR vehicle to Jeanette and valued it at $2500. She was also awarded one-half of parties' 2012 income tax refund. The court considered the pert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: unreasonable, and the court will not make any adjustment to the parties' property division as a result.\" The court also rejected the claim that Jeanette's pawning of jewelry resulted in a dissipation of assets, 4 David testified he had Tier I and Tier II retirement benefits through the railroad. Tier I benefits are in lieu of social security payments and are not divisible. Tier II benefits begin at David's retirement and are subject to division by the formula enunciated in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). 5 The district court found David's testimony that the vehicle had declined in value to $5000 de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: urance coverage for Jeanette. In addition, temporary support was raised to $1150. 6 believe Jeanette was entitled to any amount of the Vanguard account because he had contributed to it prior to the marriage. Nor did he think she should get any part of his pension.4 He asked that he be awarded the marital residence, which he valued at $36,000, and his coin collection (unknown value). He was willing to sell the Nova and split the proceeds, claiming the vehicle was then worth between $3500 and $5000. David testified he could not continue to afford to pay $1150 per month in support, and if ordered to do so, it shoul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"406369c5-06bd-4469-bf1d-604038348167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2738841-2738841","title":"CourtListener opinion 2738841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1310","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ril 2009, the house had an assessed value of $52,800. The realtor who sold the house to David offered a letter valuation on July 30, 2012, estimating the house would sell for $36,000 to $42,000. 3 At the time the parties got married, David had a Vanguard 401k account. One hundred dollars from each of his twice-monthly paychecks from Union Pacific Railroad were placed in the Vanguard account. There was no evidence as to when David began making these contributions, or the amount of the account at the time David and Jeanette were married. David continued contributing to the account for two months ($400) after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2739477 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739477 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: STIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Nevi, Advance Opinion 71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13ff8c40-bbde-40a1-a9ac-4a524a94bf85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739477-2739477","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739477","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2739667 Extracted reporter citation: 153 P.3d 945. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739667 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options at the time of the entry of the Decree, less 28% of the value to cover [Husband]'s tax liability thereon. [¶22] In her secon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: new employer were not covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s issued by his new employer were not covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd042a50-3ab0-493b-b4a2-9fdaac3ee1bd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739667-2739667","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739667","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"153 P.3d 945","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options at the t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc608314-bd25-415a-9806-87900c6f9cda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2739872 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739872 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc608314-bd25-415a-9806-87900c6f9cda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc608314-bd25-415a-9806-87900c6f9cda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: im in an uncontested divorce action. The client paid Hartin a flat fee of $1,500 and a filing fee of $207 for the preparation of the divorce papers, a Quitclaim Deed (\"QCD\") for the client's wife to relinquish any interest in the client's residence, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Hartin prepared the divorce papers and QCD; the client signed the papers on April 15, 2011 and the wife signed them on April 28, 2011. Around July 14, 2011 Hartin received a call from his client stating that the court clerk told him no case had been filed. Hartin found the paperwork in his office and filed it on July 27, 2011. On August 11, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc608314-bd25-415a-9806-87900c6f9cda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hat the QCD had not been recorded in the county records. Hartin found the QCD in his office, contacted the client's lender and closing attorney and sent all the information to 2 the attorney by Federal Express. Hartin drafted the QDRO and sent it to the retirement plan administrator and so advised his client in February 2012. In April and again in July 2012 Hartin told his client that he planned to take the QDRO to the judge to sign. But he did not present the QDRO to the judge until November 19, 2012, after the client filed a grievance against Hartin. The client then told Hartin he hired another attorney and asked Ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc608314-bd25-415a-9806-87900c6f9cda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2739872-2739872","title":"CourtListener opinion 2739872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: uncontested divorce action. The client paid Hartin a flat fee of $1,500 and a filing fee of $207 for the preparation of the divorce papers, a Quitclaim Deed (\"QCD\") for the client's wife to relinquish any interest in the client's residence, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Hartin prepared the divorce papers and QCD; the client signed the papers on April 15, 2011 and the wife signed them on April 28, 2011. Around July 14, 2011 Hartin received a call from his client stating that the court clerk told him no case had been filed. Hartin found the paperwork in his office and filed it on July 27, 2011. On August 11, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2741337 Extracted case name: OLADE v. OLADE. Extracted reporter citation: 9 P.3d 329. Docket: 1 CA-CV 13-0296. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2741337 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urt, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1971. In 1996, Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The fol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d in Wife's favor was a money judgment and that the QDRO was unlawfully used as a judgment-execution device to reach exempt property. He further contends that the QDRO improperly set forth payment terms that bore no relation to the community's interest in the retirement account. We hold that the judgment and the use of a QDRO were proper, but conclude that the QDRO's payment terms impermissibly reach property beyond the superior court's jurisdiction. 3 OLADE v. OLADE Decision of the Court I. THE COURT PROPERLY AWARDED WIFE ONE-HALF OF THE VALUE OF THE NIGERIA PROPERTY. ¶9 The decree of dissolution incorporated the parties'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ich Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1971. In 1996, Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The fol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7fe974ac-a12e-49a0-a691-f0a15720d2ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741337-2741337","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741337","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 13-0296","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 329","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ion of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2741959 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 341 S.W.3d 169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2741959 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) SIGRID GREEN, ) Honorable John R. Essner ) Appellant. ) Filed: October 14, 2014 Introduction Sigrid Green (Wife) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying Wife‟s motion for an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and reinstating the trial court‟s original QDRO. Wife‟s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: peal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on September 15, 2005. In its judgment, the trial court found that \"the SBC Pension Plan account in Husband‟s name[,] though established prior to the marriage[,] increased in value during the marriage.\"1 The trial court ordered: \"To achieve an equitable 1 The name of Husband‟s pension account subsequently changed to AT&T Pension Benefit Plan. For clarity, we will continue to refer to it as the SBC pension account. division of the marit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ,448.99 represents the value of [Wife]‟s portion of the marital portion as of the date of the judgment, which is the proper date of valuation as it is the date upon which the division of property was to become effective.\" Accordingly, QDRO IV provided: \"The alternate payee is hereby assigned and the plan administrator shall pay the alternate payee $55,488.99 as of June 26, 2007 of the benefits payable to the participant from the Plan.\" On January 22, 2010, the plan administrator rejected QDRO IV on the ground that it was not a \"qualified\" order because it based the valuation date of the SBC pension account on the date o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"280f98ba-be6d-4d21-ac1e-ad64bef56f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2741959-2741959","title":"CourtListener opinion 2741959","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . Louis County vs. ) ) SIGRID GREEN, ) Honorable John R. Essner ) Appellant. ) Filed: October 14, 2014 Introduction Sigrid Green (Wife) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying Wife‟s motion for an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and reinstating the trial court‟s original QDRO. Wife‟s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2742400 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAIME MCMANUS AND THOMAS RONALD MCMANUS Upon the Petition of JAIME MCMANUS. Extracted reporter citation: 489 N.W.2d 394. Docket: 13-1878. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: m. Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on it and divided the remaining assets, awarding Jaime a portion of Thomas's IPERS account through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Thomas filed a motion to amend and enlarge, contending the parties stipulated that each would retain its own IPERS account. The district court declined to alter its property division stating: In reviewing the Stipulation of Assets and Liabilities, it is indicated that the parties' IPERS accounts shall be received by the parties. However, there is no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 MULLINS, J. Thomas McManus appeals from a decree dissolving his marriage to Jaime McManus. Thomas argues the district court erred by awarding Jaime physical care of the minor children, awarding Jaime part of Thomas's retirement account, failing to award Thomas an extraordinary visitation credit in calculating his child support obligation, and failing to order Jaime to pay uninsured medical expenses. We find the district court failed to apply Iowa Court rule 9.9 (2013) correctly to give Thomas an extraordinary visitation credit, and failed to apply rule 9.12(5) correctly to require Ja"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: re of the children. h. The amount and duration of an order granting support payments to either party pursuant to section 598.21A and whether the property division should be in lieu of such payments. i. Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested. j. The tax consequences to each party. k. Any written agreement made the parties concerning property distribution. l. The provisions of an antenuptial agreement. m. Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9e56568-a166-4dd9-b594-50560c71d3f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742400-2742400","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1878","extracted_reporter_citation":"489 N.W.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: actors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on it and divided the remaining assets, awarding Jaime a portion of Thomas's IPERS account through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Thomas filed a motion to amend and enlarge, contending the parties stipulated that each would retain its own IPERS account. The district court declined to alter its property division stating: In reviewing the Stipulation of Assets and Liabilities, it is indicated that the parties' IPERS accounts shall be received by the parties. However, there is no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2742820 Extracted case name: COA GEORGE AARON APPELLANT v. ANNIE AARON APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742820 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on the ground of irreconcilable differences. As part of the divorce, George agreed to pay Annie one-half of his retirement funds acquired during the marriage. The judgment stated the funds would be transferred through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the time the judgment was entered, George was not receiving any retirement benefits. The judgment did not state which party was responsible for entering the QDRO. ¶3. In August 2011, George retired from the Amory Police Department. He began receiving benefits through the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). On November 4, 2011,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: IFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. George Aaron appeals the Monroe County Chancery Court's denial of his request to reconsider the judgment of divorce, in which he was ordered to pay his former wife a monthly payment from his retirement account. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS ¶2. George Aaron and Annie Aaron were married on May 25, 1991, in Monroe County, Mississippi. Annie filed for divorce in 2001. On August 12, 2002, a judgment of divorce was entered in Monroe County on the ground of irreconcilable differences. As part of the divorce, George agreed to pay Annie one-half of his retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: se of a QDRO shows the parties' intent to transfer the benefits through a finite, lump-sum payment (a separate-interest QDRO) as opposed to a monthly payment. George seemingly fails to take 5 into account the shared-payment QDRO, a QDRO which assigns the alternate payee a portion of each monthly payment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, The Division of Pensions Through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html, Question 3-3; see generally 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (2012). \"Under [the shared-payment] approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the participant receives a paym"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac6ce896-0136-499c-b0fd-0f68eb9b495a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742820-2742820","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rest QDRO) as opposed to a monthly payment. George seemingly fails to take 5 into account the shared-payment QDRO, a QDRO which assigns the alternate payee a portion of each monthly payment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, The Division of Pensions Through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html, Question 3-3; see generally 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (2012). \"Under [the shared-payment] approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the participant receives a payment or is already in pay status.\" Id. George's argument is without merit. ¶15. George further claims that the court erred in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f8f98c-8761-4a41-b4e8-fe7a99c5d639","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742972","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2742972 Extracted case name: K.L. v. E.H. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742972 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f8f98c-8761-4a41-b4e8-fe7a99c5d639","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742972","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1f8f98c-8761-4a41-b4e8-fe7a99c5d639","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2742972-2742972","title":"CourtListener opinion 2742972","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: obtain relief from her financial circumstances. Douglas has failed to demonstrate prima facie error arising from the trial court's award of $750 for attorney's 10 fees. See id. (affirming attorney fee award to Wife because Wife's counsel had to prepare a domestic relations order after Husband's counsel was ordered to prepare the order but failed to do so). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed. VAIDIK, C.J., and KIRSCH, J., concur. 11"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2744004 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2744004 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bstance of the 1998 [Judgment][,]\" we are not persuaded. Defendant signed the 1998 Judgment before a notary, and the 1998 Judgment specifically states \"WE CONSENT\" above the signature line. The terms of the 1998 Judgment clearly provide for the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order if required by the Plan Administrator of the State of North Carolina Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System, and it specifically directs the Plan Administrator to make monthly payments \"directly to the Plaintiff of the amount which equals fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant's account\" from the date of the parties' marriage to the date of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: February 1998, a Consent Judgment (1998 Judgment) was entered with respect to equitable distribution of the marital property. Defendant was a participant in the State of North Carolina Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System, and a portion of his retirement benefits was subject to equitable distribution. In the 1998 Judgment, the trial court made the following findings of fact with regard to the portion of defendant's retirement benefits designated to plaintiff: (B) That the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff shall be designated as the alternate payee of retirement benefits equal to fifty p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the 1998 Judgment, the trial court made the following findings of fact with regard to the portion of defendant's retirement benefits designated to plaintiff: (B) That the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff shall be designated as the alternate payee of retirement benefits equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant/Plan Participant's account which can be attributed to that amount which accrued from the date of the parties' marriage (October 24, 1976) to the date of their separation (November 1, 1995), plus all interest accruing on the alternate payee's portion from the date of the parties' s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4af1d03d-be52-4799-9f73-de0592dd7ae7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2744004-2744004","title":"CourtListener opinion 2744004","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt, for appellant. ELMORE, Judge. William Wallace Digh (defendant) appeals from the trial court's denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion and his Rule 59 motion. Defendant argues on appeal that he was not afforded due process prior to the entry of the 2009 Domestic Relations Order. After careful consideration, we affirm. I. Background -2- The facts of this case are largely undisputed and are derived from an earlier opinion filed in this matter, Digh v. Digh, COA12-506, 2012 WL 6590509 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012). Rebecca Chapman Digh (plaintiff) and defendant were married on 24 October 1976 and subsequently separated on 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2745889 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of MARJORIE ANNE and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2745889 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: KETAILY. (Super. Ct. No. D261068) (Ventura County) MARJORIE ANNE KETAILY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL EDWARD KETAILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles Ci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in August 1980. He and Wife were married in May 1987 and separated in April 1 1998. Husband first became eligible to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: (Super. Ct. No. D261068) (Ventura County) MARJORIE ANNE KETAILY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL EDWARD KETAILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles Ci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb181df2-98ad-43dd-9e9e-5d43bb24ad7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2745889-2745889","title":"CourtListener opinion 2745889","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: AILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in August 1980. He and Wife were married in May 1987 and separated in A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2746106 Docket: 14-CA-27 5 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2746106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eement reached by appellee and decedent. At the time of the divorce, decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal sup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1969. Appellee and Decedent were divorced via Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed November 26, 1997. The Decree incorporated a Separation Agreement reached by appellee and decedent. At the time of the divorce, decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ded by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-27 3 (b)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf95a866-bef3-4eba-93ab-23b0798af02c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746106-2746106","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-CA-27 5 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ng retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. Fairfield County, Ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3acc36e7-bcdd-419d-b076-921e5d68a17d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746446","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1884","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2746446 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW MORRIS AND ALLISON MORRIS Upon the Petition of MATTHEW MORRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 13-1884. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2746446 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3acc36e7-bcdd-419d-b076-921e5d68a17d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746446","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1884","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3acc36e7-bcdd-419d-b076-921e5d68a17d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746446","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1884","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be \"saved harmless\" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name. The court denied the post-trial motions, and Allison a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3acc36e7-bcdd-419d-b076-921e5d68a17d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746446","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1884","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Matthew and ordered Allison be \"saved harmless\" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3acc36e7-bcdd-419d-b076-921e5d68a17d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2746446-2746446","title":"CourtListener opinion 2746446","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1884","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: harmless\" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name. The court denied the post-trial motions, and Allison a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2748655 Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 10. There is no other evidence. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2748655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Dr. Rosen also assumed that Riga would continue to receive an annual 3 percent cost of living increase until she retires. Based on these assumptions, Dr. Rosen determined what the pension would be worth in 2029. Dr. Rosen admitted he was not familiar with qualified domestic relations orders or order acceptable for processing. {¶47} By contrast, Riga's expert, Brian Hogan (\"Hogan\"), testified that he uses the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\") method for valuing FERS pensions because the PBGC is the government entity that ensures plans are properly funded and can pay their benefits. He further testified that the PBGC method i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: In preparing his evaluation, he assumed Riga performed no additional work for the federal government after June 29, 2012, and assumed a retirement age of 62 years. An individual who has a minimum five years of service in the FERS plan becomes eligible for retirement benefits at 62 years of age. After factoring in the PBGC interest rates and the PBGC mortality tables, Hogan determined that Riga's FERS pension had a present value of $177,911.96, as of November 12, 2012, because it had vested but was not matured. This figure also represented the marital portion of the pension earned during the marriage. {¶49} Hogan explained"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he testimony of three experts. However, none of this evidence supports Saks's assertion. Plaintiff's expert reports include (1) an appraisal of the marital home dated August 23, 2012, (2) a preliminary report from an economist concerning the value of Riga's pension benefits as of August 15, 2012, (3) a revised pension valuation of Riga's pension benefits as of January 23, 2013, and (4) an appraisal of the parties' personal property dated December 29, 2012. {¶12} The appraiser who valued the parties' marital home testified at trial and confirmed that he performed an appraisal of the parties' marital home in August"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d20569-a2dc-40bb-8852-6efd8718877f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2748655-2748655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2748655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10. There is no other evidence","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: also assumed that Riga would continue to receive an annual 3 percent cost of living increase until she retires. Based on these assumptions, Dr. Rosen determined what the pension would be worth in 2029. Dr. Rosen admitted he was not familiar with qualified domestic relations orders or order acceptable for processing. {¶47} By contrast, Riga's expert, Brian Hogan (\"Hogan\"), testified that he uses the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\") method for valuing FERS pensions because the PBGC is the government entity that ensures plans are properly funded and can pay their benefits. He further testified that the PBGC method i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2751146 Extracted reporter citation: 145 U.S. 368. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2751146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the Court upon the appeal of Petitioner, Carol Kinsinger, from a July 30, 2013, order of the Circuit Court of Mason County denying her petition for appeal of a final order of the family court which declined to find Respondent, Todd Pethel, in contempt of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter \"QDRO\"). Herein, Petitioner argues that 1) the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of prope"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecord before us on appeal, and applicable legal precedent, we affirm the circuit court's finding that Respondent was not in contempt of the QDRO, but we reverse the circuit court's finding that Petitioner was barred from obtaining her share of Respondent's retirement benefits pursuant to the doctrine of laches. We therefore remand this matter to the circuit court for entry of a judgment order awarding Petitioner the remainder of the $4,081.51 to which she is entitled under the settlement agreement. 1 The Respondent, Todd Pethel, has not entered an appearance or filed a responsive brief in this appeal. 1 I. FACTUAL AND"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: upon the appeal of Petitioner, Carol Kinsinger, from a July 30, 2013, order of the Circuit Court of Mason County denying her petition for appeal of a final order of the family court which declined to find Respondent, Todd Pethel, in contempt of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter \"QDRO\"). Herein, Petitioner argues that 1) the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of prope"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9eeb73f-f6d0-443b-9e17-e35e47994ef9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751146-2751146","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"145 U.S. 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of property rights. Upon review of the Petitioner's arguments,1 the record before us on appeal, and applicable legal precedent, we affirm the circuit court's finding that Respondent was not in contempt of the QDRO, but we reverse the circuit court's finding that Petitioner was barred from obtaining her share of Respondent's retirement benefits pursuant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2751976 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2751976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: STIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Nevi, Advance Opinion 71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84ee8a1c-480a-41f7-becf-7e6a04b633be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2751976-2751976","title":"CourtListener opinion 2751976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0df6fd88-a292-4339-aa4b-3165f96b44b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2752209 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2752209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0df6fd88-a292-4339-aa4b-3165f96b44b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0df6fd88-a292-4339-aa4b-3165f96b44b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: les. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO was heard in October 2002, but the parties passed it off the calendar. There was no further action to prepare and enter a QDRO until 2012"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0df6fd88-a292-4339-aa4b-3165f96b44b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y Pallini (Anthony) became divorced on August 2, 2001. The respondent represented Melissa, and Anthony was represented by Attorney Brenda Rioles. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0df6fd88-a292-4339-aa4b-3165f96b44b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752209-2752209","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: presented at the disciplinary hearing, the respondent acknowledged that, by his wrongful retrieval of the divorce documents, including the automatic orders, he had provided an advantage to his client, requiring further judicial proceedings to effectuate an equitable distribution of the marital assets. The respondent further acknowledged that his conduct in this matter was in violation of Rule 8.4(d) 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By wrongfully taking the divorce papers and failing to disclose to Iannone he had done so, he interfered with Iannone's ability to obtain proper service and protect the rights of her client. H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2752803 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MARIA CARMEN and JULIO CESAR SANTILLAN. Extracted reporter citation: 190 Cal.App.4th 739. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2752803 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: red throughout their marriage. The judgment divided their community property evenly. She deposited his retirement check into her account because, at that point, the court's judgment entitled her to half of it and he had not yet cooperated with her to get a qualified domestic relations order issued to separate their interests. Husband's health problems have been long-standing. 3 The documents husband provided to support this statement showed the deposit and withdrawal occurred in March 2013. 4 The court denied husband's request for relief, finding no basis to set aside the default and default judgment. Husband sought reconsideration of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sal support for future determination and made wife responsible for approximately $12,000 in credit card debts. The court divided the marital property by awarding wife their home, the furnishings in it, two cars, 100 percent of the community interest in her retirement plan, approximately $60,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. The court awarded husband three cars, a flatbed trailer, a motor home, tools, approximately $80,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. On March 22, 2013, husband, now represented by counsel, filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): fe responsible for approximately $12,000 in credit card debts. The court divided the marital property by awarding wife their home, the furnishings in it, two cars, 100 percent of the community interest in her retirement plan, approximately $60,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. The court awarded husband three cars, a flatbed trailer, a motor home, tools, approximately $80,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. On March 22, 2013, husband, now represented by counsel, filed a request for an order setting asid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf694cc5-bea5-4b0b-8685-3940436a02e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2752803-2752803","title":"CourtListener opinion 2752803","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 Cal.App.4th 739","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hout their marriage. The judgment divided their community property evenly. She deposited his retirement check into her account because, at that point, the court's judgment entitled her to half of it and he had not yet cooperated with her to get a qualified domestic relations order issued to separate their interests. Husband's health problems have been long-standing. 3 The documents husband provided to support this statement showed the deposit and withdrawal occurred in March 2013. 4 The court denied husband's request for relief, finding no basis to set aside the default and default judgment. Husband sought reconsideration of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2753338 Docket: 310479 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2753338 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Antonio P. Viviano on November 16, 2009. The judgment awarded each party fifty percent of the marital portion of the other party's pension, i.e., plaintiff's pension with the State of Michigan (Lakeview Public Schools) and defendant's pension with Chrysler. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO), as appropriate for each pension, was to be prepared and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The judgment provided alternate payee \"will be allowed to elect or begin receiving his/her benefits at the Participant's earliest retirement age.\" In addition, it provided, \"To the extent that the Plan charge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: yments under the Plan at any time beginning when the Participant reaches the earliest retirement date as defined in Section 2(d) of the Eligible Domestic Relations Order Act (MCL 38.1701 et seq.). . . . If the Participant elects to receive an early-reduced retirement benefit, the Alternate Payee's benefit shall also be reduced by the same early retirement factor. *** 10. ACTUARIAL FEES: The Participant and Alternate Payee agree to share any additional costs for actuarial services incurred by the Plan due to the review and implementation of the terms of this Order. The Alternate Payee's share of said costs shall be in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t, 9:05 a.m. v No. 310479 Macomb Circuit Court MICHAEL J. MAHAR, LC No. 2009-001462-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: WILDER, P.J., AND SAAD AND K. F. KELLY, JJ. WILDER, P.J. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted1 an order denying a motion for relief from a pension provision in a divorce judgment. We reverse and remand. I The parties were married in 1993. Plaintiff filed for divorce from defendant in March 2009. The case was submitted to arbitration before a referee. A consent judgment of divorce was entered by Judge Antonio P. Viviano on November 16, 2009. The judgment awarded each party fifty percent of the mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a92245e-41b1-4ffa-b5f2-2cf3cd865a9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2753338-2753338","title":"CourtListener opinion 2753338","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"310479 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: c Schools) and defendant's pension with Chrysler. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO), as appropriate for each pension, was to be prepared and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The judgment provided alternate payee \"will be allowed to elect or begin receiving his/her benefits at the Participant's earliest retirement age.\" In addition, it provided, \"To the extent that the Plan charges an administrative or actuarial cost for reviewing or administering the QDRO/EDRO, the Plaintiff and Defendant agree to split this cost equally.\" Subsequently, two QDROs covering defenda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17d51c0b-14c7-4154-898d-952aa2db2094","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2754086 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2754086 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17d51c0b-14c7-4154-898d-952aa2db2094","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17d51c0b-14c7-4154-898d-952aa2db2094","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: les. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO was heard in October 2002, but the parties passed it off the calendar. There was no further action to prepare and enter a QDRO until 2012"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17d51c0b-14c7-4154-898d-952aa2db2094","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y Pallini (Anthony) became divorced on August 2, 2001. The respondent represented Melissa, and Anthony was represented by Attorney Brenda Rioles. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17d51c0b-14c7-4154-898d-952aa2db2094","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754086-2754086","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754086","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: presented at the disciplinary hearing, the respondent acknowledged that, by his wrongful retrieval of the divorce documents, including the automatic orders, he had provided an advantage to his client, requiring further judicial proceedings to effectuate an equitable distribution of the marital assets. The respondent further acknowledged that his conduct in this matter was in violation of Rule 8.4(d) 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By wrongfully taking the divorce papers and failing to disclose to Iannone he had done so, he interfered with Iannone's ability to obtain proper service and protect the rights of her client. H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30260e97-04b6-4b2a-b26f-e2928de34fb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2754522 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2754522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30260e97-04b6-4b2a-b26f-e2928de34fb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30260e97-04b6-4b2a-b26f-e2928de34fb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: les. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO was heard in October 2002, but the parties passed it off the calendar. There was no further action to prepare and enter a QDRO until 2012"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30260e97-04b6-4b2a-b26f-e2928de34fb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y Pallini (Anthony) became divorced on August 2, 2001. The respondent represented Melissa, and Anthony was represented by Attorney Brenda Rioles. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30260e97-04b6-4b2a-b26f-e2928de34fb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2754522-2754522","title":"CourtListener opinion 2754522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2014-308-M.P","extracted_reporter_citation":"701 A.2d 1018","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: presented at the disciplinary hearing, the respondent acknowledged that, by his wrongful retrieval of the divorce documents, including the automatic orders, he had provided an advantage to his client, requiring further judicial proceedings to effectuate an equitable distribution of the marital assets. The respondent further acknowledged that his conduct in this matter was in violation of Rule 8.4(d) 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By wrongfully taking the divorce papers and failing to disclose to Iannone he had done so, he interfered with Iannone's ability to obtain proper service and protect the rights of her client. H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2755697 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHLEEN KAY KOETHER AND GREGORY SCOTT KOETHER Upon the Petition of KATHLEEN KAY. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 13-2047. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2755697 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gs. We therefore modify the district court's order in that respect. Greg's share of Kathy's IPERS benefits will be calculated on the date of distribution using the method described by our supreme court in Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 651 n.2. Entry of a corrected qualified domestic relations order consistent with this ruling shall be prepared by Kathy's counsel for the court's signature. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: its division was equitable. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion as to both the vehicles and Greg's use of LLC assets for living expenses.6 E. IPERS Benefits Kathy lastly asserts the district court used an incorrect formula to divide her retirement benefits in the IPERS system because it failed to remove future 6 Because the vehicles are not demonstrably LLC assets and neither this court nor the district court distributes LLC assets in the form of a salary, the district court did not need to pierce the corporate veil to reach its conclusions despite Kathy's claims to the contrary. 12 accumulations from Gr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: refore modify the district court's order in that respect. Greg's share of Kathy's IPERS benefits will be calculated on the date of distribution using the method described by our supreme court in Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 651 n.2. Entry of a corrected qualified domestic relations order consistent with this ruling shall be prepared by Kathy's counsel for the court's signature. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72008019-dad2-4de5-8645-dd82dda57c5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2755697-2755697","title":"CourtListener opinion 2755697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-2047","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rict court awarded Greg his 4 interest in the timber property rather than divide it between the parties as a marital asset. \"Property inherited by either party . . . during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a property division . . . except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party . . . .\" Iowa Code § 598.21(6) (2013). There are five factors we consider to determine whether exempting inherited property from division is inequitable: (1) contributions of the parties toward the property, its care, preservation, or improvement; (2) inde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2758188 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2758188 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ding the estate attorney fees. The issues before this court are whether it is equitable to impose a constructive trust to require the beneficiary of a 401(k) account to return funds received when it was intended that the account be subject to a division by QDRO; whether a domestic relations court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims based on a separation agreement more than six months after the death of one of the parties to the agreement; and whether it is an abuse of discretion to award attorney fees to a party against whom a motion for contempt was unsuccessfully prosecuted. For the following reasons, we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ich he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy.\" Id. at ¶ 18. {¶21} For example, in Fischbach v. Mercuri, 184 Ohio App.3d 105, 2009-Ohio- 4790, 919 N.E.2d 804 (2nd Dist.), the current spouse (Mercuri) of an STRS plan participant received retirement benefits owed, according to the terms of the divorce decree, to the former spouse (Fischbach). The court of appeals held that Fischbach was entitled to \"the funds received by Mercuri on the basis of unjust enrichment, as a result of a wrongful act by her late husband, the plan participant,\" i.e., failing to designate Fischbach as a beneficiary on the fund. Id."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: E.2d 1028 (1989). {¶19} The domestic relations court and magistrate relied on the case of Drummond v. Drummond, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 10-CA-20, 2010-Ohio-6139, which held that a constructive trust was an appropriate remedy where the proceeds of an STRS pension were not distributed in accordance with the terms of a separation agreement. Id. at ¶ 31-32. {¶20} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that a constructive trust may be imposed as an equitable remedy \"against unjust enrichment * * * where it is against the principles of equity that the property be retained by a certain person even though the property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31be0675-5286-4579-8d18-20d43659f7ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758188-2758188","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758188","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the other spouse as a beneficiary is revoked as a result of the divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment. {¶24} There is no dispute that Alden's Lincoln Electric 401(k) account is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). 29 U.S.C. 1002(1). Under ERISA, employee welfare benefit plans must be administered \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan,\" and payments thereunder must be made to the \"beneficiary\" who is \"designated by a participant, or by the terms of [the] plan.\" 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(D) and 1002(8). It is further provided that ERIS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce0ef1b5-9ece-4f1a-919b-1ef75ee014e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758554","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2758554 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2758554 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce0ef1b5-9ece-4f1a-919b-1ef75ee014e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758554","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce0ef1b5-9ece-4f1a-919b-1ef75ee014e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758554","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bus, Ohio 43212-2710 Licking County, Case No. 14 CA 28 2 Wise, J. {¶1}. Appellant Kent Ware appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Licking County, which issued a nunc pro tunc Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\") following his divorce from Appellee Barbara Ware."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce0ef1b5-9ece-4f1a-919b-1ef75ee014e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2758554-2758554","title":"CourtListener opinion 2758554","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43212-2710 Licking County, Case No. 14 CA 28 2 Wise, J. {¶1}. Appellant Kent Ware appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Licking County, which issued a nunc pro tunc Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\") following his divorce from Appellee Barbara Ware."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2759298 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2759298 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: thdraws, which she claims she must do \"to survive,\" while appellee is able to keep his portion of the money in the account, let it grow tax free, and pay no taxes until he withdraws it in retirement.1 1 Ehrenberg testified that money transferred into the QDRO account is not taxed, but he did not address money that she withdraws from it for living expenses, which is taxed. 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 697 Appellant also asserts that appellee's pre-separation spending highlights the inequity of the distribution. Appellee admitted that he withdrew either $73,557.92 or $76,121.922 from his 401(k) in April 2011,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ible for the monthly bill paying the last six years, as well as being solely responsible for cooking, cleaning, and the upkeep of the house during that time. Before the date of separation, appellee paid off several bills including marital debts out of his 401(k) plan from which he withdrew $22,826.34—the plan having a value of $234,059.91 as of December 21, 2012. The parties had the marital residence built in 1981 which was valued at $87,000, and the balance of approximately $15,000 owed on the house was paid off from these funds around March 2011. Additionally, appellee paid off appellant's car, his son's car,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y had been divided, that appellant agreed to transfer her interest in the marital home to appellee for the amount of $43,500, and that she also agreed to transfer her interest in a certain mobile home to the parties' son. Other agreed orders and qualifying domestic relations orders (QDROs) concerning the property and assets were also entered. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the final decree on December 2, 2013, and on December 10, 2013, appellee filed a reply to the motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, appellant filed a reply to the response to the motion for reconsideration, but no order was entered addressi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91038f06-2eac-4356-8cd3-599d35e4bc5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2759298-2759298","title":"CourtListener opinion 2759298","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , 288 S.W.3d 680 (2008), that equal division of the marital property is what is fair and equitable in a divorce case. A circuit court is given broad powers to distribute all property in divorce cases, marital and non-marital, in order to achieve a fair and equitable distribution. Marks v. Marks, 2014 Ark. App. 174, 432 S.W.3d 698. In making such a distribution a court need not do so with 9 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 697 mathematical precision. Friend v. Friend, 2010 Ark. App. 525, 376 S.W.3d 519. A division of marital property will be not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Wainwright v. Merryman, 2014 Ark. App. 156. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2761154 Extracted case name: L.P.A. v. C.J. Extracted reporter citation: 461 N.E.2d 1295. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2761154 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 \"by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC.\" 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rather than settle, the outcome would have been more favorable to her; she claims that she would have gotten a larger portion of her ex-husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 \"by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC.\" 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rather than settle, the outcome would have been more favorable to her; she claims that she would have gotten a l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s reviewed and found to be fair and equitable. 11/28/11 Magistrate's Decision; 11/28/11 J.E. {¶5} The portions of the separation agreement that are at issue in a legal malpractice action are spousal support, marital debt, and the division of Richard Bangor's 401(K). The separation agreement provided that Richard would pay Christine $1,200 a month in spousal support for 59 months. The agreement indicated that Richard would pay the majority of the marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09670f8a-1bd4-4bb6-a67e-0c38ef287284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2761154-2761154","title":"CourtListener opinion 2761154","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1295","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e $1,200 a month in spousal support for 59 months. The agreement indicated that Richard would pay the majority of the marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 \"by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC.\" 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rathe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8f15f18c-3d5c-4b51-aef8-8034c5f9d6a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691","title":"CourtListener opinion 2762691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130392","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 N.W.2d 25","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2762691 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Allen. Extracted reporter citation: 721 N.W.2d 25. Docket: 20130392. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2762691 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8f15f18c-3d5c-4b51-aef8-8034c5f9d6a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691","title":"CourtListener opinion 2762691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130392","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 N.W.2d 25","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8f15f18c-3d5c-4b51-aef8-8034c5f9d6a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691","title":"CourtListener opinion 2762691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130392","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 N.W.2d 25","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t $2,333,248, and ordered him to pay her $815,479 to equalize the property distribution. The court also awarded each party half of the proceeds from the sale of corn and soybeans and half of future payments from Sharleen Albrecht's two pensions, payable in a qualified domestic relations order. The court explained the marriage was long-term and none of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines established any reason to distribute the marital property unequally. The court issued a subsequent order substituting Sharleen Albrecht's estate as a party in the divorce action and denying Glenvin Albrecht's motion for clarification of the award of proceeds from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8f15f18c-3d5c-4b51-aef8-8034c5f9d6a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691","title":"CourtListener opinion 2762691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130392","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 N.W.2d 25","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 48, and ordered him to pay her $815,479 to equalize the property distribution. The court also awarded each party half of the proceeds from the sale of corn and soybeans and half of future payments from Sharleen Albrecht's two pensions, payable in a qualified domestic relations order. The court explained the marriage was long-term and none of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines established any reason to distribute the marital property unequally. The court issued a subsequent order substituting Sharleen Albrecht's estate as a party in the divorce action and denying Glenvin Albrecht's motion for clarification of the award of proceeds from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8f15f18c-3d5c-4b51-aef8-8034c5f9d6a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2762691-2762691","title":"CourtListener opinion 2762691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20130392","extracted_reporter_citation":"721 N.W.2d 25","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03-01. Under section 14-05-01, NDCC, Doris's and Allen's marriage was dissolved by Doris's death. Upon the death, there was no longer a marriage for the trial court to dissolve with a judgment decreeing a divorce. A court will make an equitable distribution of the real and personal property when a divorce is granted. N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-24. In a divorce action, the equitable distribution of property is incidental to a judgment of divorce. Because the marriage was dissolved by death and not by divorce, the trial court did not err when it held that there was no longer a marriage to be dissolved and, there"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2dabaf19-b10f-4aa5-9c50-d46dd74db5d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"303 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 A.2d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2765083 Extracted reporter citation: 714 A.2d 1016. Docket: 303 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765083 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2dabaf19-b10f-4aa5-9c50-d46dd74db5d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"303 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 A.2d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2dabaf19-b10f-4aa5-9c50-d46dd74db5d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"303 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 A.2d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ts \"certain marital documents that the [p]arties drafted together.\" Appellant's Brief at 5 (emphasis removed). Within her brief, Appellant asserts, \"[i]n 2011, Dreakford created and emailed [Appellant] a Separation Agreement and then the parties created a QDRO together, both documents containing August 1, - 12 - J-A35018-14 1997 as the agreed upon date of marriage.\" Appellant's Brief at 18. According to Appellant: The trial court excluded these documents as evidence despite argument that they were an opposing party's admission. Pa.R.E. 803(25). It also appears that had they been admitted, they would hav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2dabaf19-b10f-4aa5-9c50-d46dd74db5d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765083-2765083","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765083","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"303 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"714 A.2d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: usual formalities, the claim must be viewed with great scrutiny. -6- J-A35018-14 Generally, words in the present tense are required to prove common law marriage. Because common law marriage cases arose most frequently because of claims for a putative surviving spouse's share of an estate, however, we developed a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage where there is an absence of testimony regarding the exchange of verba in praesenti. When applicable, the party claiming a common law marriage who proves: (1) constant cohabitation; and (2) a reputation of marriage which is not partial or divided but"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f210218a-8fbd-4df9-9703-0886f93a8dbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765246","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2765246 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765246 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f210218a-8fbd-4df9-9703-0886f93a8dbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765246","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f210218a-8fbd-4df9-9703-0886f93a8dbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765246","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: has since purchased her own home. In addition, the circuit court's July 17, 2013 order of divorce entitled wife to $147,240.89 of the marital share of husband's retirement account with Klockner Pentaplast and directed husband's attorney to prepare a qualified domestic relations order to that effect. - 29 - SunTrust account 7053, SunTrust account 0532, Union account 8512, and Union account 4006. We do not address husband's seventh, eighth, and ninth assignments of error challenging the $300,000 lump sum spousal support award to wife because remanding the matter for new equitable distribution determinations also requires the circuit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f210218a-8fbd-4df9-9703-0886f93a8dbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765246-2765246","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765246","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: peals the circuit court's order granting Robin R. DeLanoy (wife) a divorce on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than one year. Husband raises nine assignments of error pertaining to the issues of post-separation adultery, equitable distribution, and spousal support. Wife, in her responsive brief, has raised eight assignments of cross-error pertaining to the issues of constructive desertion and equitable distribution. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. * Pursua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c01d6d3-d9dc-497e-94a6-9a72b943af07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765506","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2765506 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765506 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c01d6d3-d9dc-497e-94a6-9a72b943af07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765506","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c01d6d3-d9dc-497e-94a6-9a72b943af07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765506","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: LISHED OPINION Respondent MELNICK, J. — Anthony Budziusl appeals from the trial court' s denial of his complaint to vacate an amendment to his dissolution decree with Leslie Miller. Budzius argues that the amended decree was invalid because it was not a qualified domestic relations order ( QDRO), and Budzius' s former attorney lacked authority to agree to the amended decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c01d6d3-d9dc-497e-94a6-9a72b943af07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765506","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirement plan with the state. Budzius and Miller divorced in November of 1992. The decree of dissolution, as originally drafted, provided that the value of the community interest in Budzius' s retirement account was 27,210, and \\ a Qualified Domestic Relations Order should issue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c01d6d3-d9dc-497e-94a6-9a72b943af07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2765506-2765506","title":"CourtListener opinion 2765506","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: NION Respondent MELNICK, J. — Anthony Budziusl appeals from the trial court' s denial of his complaint to vacate an amendment to his dissolution decree with Leslie Miller. Budzius argues that the amended decree was invalid because it was not a qualified domestic relations order ( QDRO), and Budzius' s former attorney lacked authority to agree to the amended decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2769818 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 991 N.E.2d 992. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2769818 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vested pension account. See In re Marriage of Preston, 704 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (discussing various methods for dividing future pension benefits in a dissolution decree); Ryan v. Janovsky, 999 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing use of qualified domestic relations order for payment of pension benefits divided years earlier in dissolution decree), trans. denied. 10 II. Child Support Arrearage Terry also contends the trial court erred in calculating the amount of his child support arrearage as being $11,805. Decisions regarding child support generally rest within the trial court's sound discretion. Dore v. Dore, 782"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of approximately $11,000. There also was evidence that each party owned a vehicle, though their values were unclear. There was no marital residence or any other significant assets. Donna also requested payment of attorney fees from Terry because of his uncooperativeness during discovery. On April 9, 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ederal Express. Additionally, Donna submitted a financial declaration showing an Eli Lilly 401(k) account with a gross value of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of approximately $11,000. There also was evidence that each party owned a vehicle, though their values were unclear. There was no marital residence or any other significant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2112c5e5-4788-48ea-9768-a0fc27555587","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2769818-2769818","title":"CourtListener opinion 2769818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 992","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): red pro se. At that time, evidence was presented that Donna earned $1,247.34 per week from her job at Eli Lilly, while Terry earned $850.50 per week from his job at Federal Express. Additionally, Donna submitted a financial declaration showing an Eli Lilly 401(k) account with a gross value of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2771241 Extracted case name: APPELLANTS v. MELISSA VANDERKAM. Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2771241 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: an,\" id. § 1144(a). One exception rests on the fact that plan benefits are often considered marital community property, a domain traditionally reserved exclusively for state law. As a result, Congress exempted a narrow category of state-court orders, known as qualified domestic relations orders, from ERISA's anti-alienation and preemption provisions. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); § 1144(b)(7). A qualified domestic relations order is a state-court decree regarding marital property that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to ERISA-governed benefits—for instance, changing the plan beneficiary from a soon-to-be ex-spouse to a child. Id. 3 § 1056"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e trust for his benefit. The district court rejected this claim, holding that ERISA preempts any state law or state-court decree that would otherwise defeat the spouse's vested annuity. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. I. ERISA protects retirement benefits for millions of pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Finding that the stability of retirement benefits directly affects the national economy, id. § 1001(a), Congress acted to ensure that accrued benefits remain unaltered by individuals and states alike. It accomplished this by prohibiting participants from assigning or al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: INSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 2 TATEL, Circuit Judge: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) entitles certain spouses of pension plan participants to a survivor annuity unless waived pursuant to clearly defined procedures. In this case, the pension plan participant concedes that ERISA vested an annuity in his ex-wife, but nonetheless argues that Texas law, including his Texas divorce decree, requires entry now of a declaratory judgment that, after his death, she place her annuity pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9982c607-6807-475a-9001-5c7068b5be5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771241-2771241","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 2 TATEL, Circuit Judge: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) entitles certain spouses of pension plan participants to a survivor annuity unless waived pursuant to clearly defined procedures. In this case, the pension plan participant concedes that ERISA vested an annuity in his ex-wife, but nonetheless argues that Texas law, including his Texas divorce decree, requires entry now of a declaratory judgment that, after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c4641de-dbc3-4418-a08e-13803af32f69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 F.2d 187","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2771373 Extracted reporter citation: 918 F.2d 187. Docket: CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2771373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c4641de-dbc3-4418-a08e-13803af32f69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 F.2d 187","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c4641de-dbc3-4418-a08e-13803af32f69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 F.2d 187","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: IAF), Tab 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) purporting to award the appellant a survivor annuity was not effective because it modified the first court order dividing marital property and was executed after Mr. Lowe died. 0312 IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (0312 ID) at 7. ¶3 The administrative judge noted, however, that, during proceedings in the appeal, the appellant claimed that Mr. Lowe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c4641de-dbc3-4418-a08e-13803af32f69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 F.2d 187","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) purporting to award the appellant a survivor annuity was not effective because it modified the first court order dividing marital property and was executed after Mr. Lowe died. 0312 IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (0312 ID) at 7. ¶3 The administrative judge noted, however, that, during proceedings in the appeal, the appellant claimed that Mr. Lowe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c4641de-dbc3-4418-a08e-13803af32f69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2771373-2771373","title":"CourtListener opinion 2771373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 F.2d 187","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g). BACKGROUND ¶2 The appellant filed an appeal challenging OPM's January 5, 2011 reconsideration decision, in which OPM denied the appellant's request for a court-awarded survivor annuity. MSPB Docket No. CH-0831-11-0312-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0312 IAF), Tab 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2772541 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 462. Docket: sheet states that on July 9. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2772541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n of or as a result of [Armando's] past, present, or future employment. At the top of the page, there is a handwritten note stating, \"Remainder milit ret,\" and there is a handwritten paragraph H-9 mid-page, which states in its entirety, \"50% profit share - QDRO.\" The 2008 decree awards Patricia: W-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee 1 We note that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ditions.1 In relevant part, Armando is awarded: H-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Armando is awarded: H-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Armando's] name. H-7."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d8407a-6a59-4f3a-a9d9-16ba441d37bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2772541-2772541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2772541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet states that on July 9","extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Armando's] name. H-7. All sums, whether matured or unmatured, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2773194 Docket: I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2773194 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as the termination date of marriage and distributed the marital assets and debts as to that date. Specifically, the magistrate recommended that Robert's $70,000 in loans from his brother and friend be considered a marital debt. It also recommended that a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") be issued to allow Jennifer to receive one-half of Robert's deferred compensation plans, vested and unvested, as of November 2006, \"payable to [Jennifer] once the unvested portion of the deferred compensation plans becomes fully vested.\" (Docket No. 171, p. 8). Moreover, the magistrate recommended that the trial court deny Robert's request to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of Error No. III {¶63} In Robert's third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in awarding Jennifer one-half of his unvested deferred compensation. We disagree. -34- Case No. 17-14-13 {¶64} It is well-established that \"[a] vested pension plan accumulated during the marriage is a marital asset and must be considered * * * in dividing marital assets and liabilities.\" Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 132 (1989). Further, a trial court \"may also consider the value of an unvested pension plan as a marital asset for purposes of reaching an equitable distribution.\" (Emphasis deleted). K"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ermination date of marriage and distributed the marital assets and debts as to that date. Specifically, the magistrate recommended that Robert's $70,000 in loans from his brother and friend be considered a marital debt. It also recommended that a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") be issued to allow Jennifer to receive one-half of Robert's deferred compensation plans, vested and unvested, as of November 2006, \"payable to [Jennifer] once the unvested portion of the deferred compensation plans becomes fully vested.\" (Docket No. 171, p. 8). Moreover, the magistrate recommended that the trial court deny Robert's request to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9fea796-3e20-48cf-9a2f-311c42e2cb91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2773194-2773194","title":"CourtListener opinion 2773194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: within its discretion to \"award a credit to the party who uses his or her own separate funds to make mortgage or other loan payments while the divorce is pending.\" Shattuck v. Shattuck, 153 Ohio App.3d 622, 2003- Ohio-4230, ¶ 25 (7th Dist.), citing Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property, Section 6.25, 441 (2d Ed.1994). Such a request will be denied however, if the payments were made with marital funds. Id. Further, a trial court may also deny a claim for reimbursement for mortgage payments when the spouse retains exclusive use and possession of the marital home. See Wu v. Li, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA- 2012-04-091, 2013-Ohi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02117ae9-66e0-43fa-b890-2b09f26813b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778118","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778118 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778118 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02117ae9-66e0-43fa-b890-2b09f26813b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778118","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02117ae9-66e0-43fa-b890-2b09f26813b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778118","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: alance of $80,437.02 and the Ready Reserve account has an approximate balance of $432.05. Wife shall receive one-half of the balance from these two accounts as of the date of the signing of this agreement, together with any gain or loss thereon, until the QDRO is prepared. Wife shall be allotted fifty percent of the marital share of FERS account and Ready Reserve account by way of a QDRO. Husband shall have both QDROs prepared at Husband's expense within 30 days of the entry of a final decree of divorce. If Husband has Military pension, Wife will receive fifty percent of the marital share. Approximately on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02117ae9-66e0-43fa-b890-2b09f26813b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778118","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rt of his appeal are as follows: (1) \"The trial court erred in its Order dated June 3, 2014, when it heard parol evidence on terms of the parties' Amendment to Property Settlement Agreement that were unambiguous;\" (2) \"The trial court erred by entering its Retirement Benefits Court Order (TSP) dated May 18, 2014 and its Court Order Acceptable for Processing (FERS) dated May 18, 2014, when the Amendment to Property/Separation Agreement clearly states ‘[h]usband shall have both QDROs prepared at Husband's expense within 30 days after official retirement from CIA;'\" (3) \"The trial court erred in its Order dated June 3, 2014, when"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02117ae9-66e0-43fa-b890-2b09f26813b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778118-2778118","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778118","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n its two May 18, 2014 orders and its June 3, 2014 order as to a disputed provision in the parties' property settlement agreement, titled \"Pensions,\" addressing husband's Thrift Savings Plan (\"TSP\") account, Federal Employees' Retirement System (\"FERS\") pension, and Ready Reserve account; and (ii) the circuit court's refusal to award attorney's fees to husband in its March 26, 2014 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. order.1 For the following reasons, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand the judgment of the circuit court in part. PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMEN"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab88f2e3-42b2-4a4b-a464-8404a9658897","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778257","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778257 Extracted case name: L.P. v. HD. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778257 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab88f2e3-42b2-4a4b-a464-8404a9658897","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778257","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab88f2e3-42b2-4a4b-a464-8404a9658897","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778257-2778257","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778257","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n the assault in the garage, defendant was charged with count IV, corporal injury to a spouse. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on this charge and a mistrial was declared. However, defendant was charged and convicted of count V, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order on the same day. 19. Defendant Allegedly Calls Sewell's Cell Phone On March 20, 2008, defendant appeared in court and was served with a criminal protective order to have no contact, directly or indirectly, with Sewell, including by a telephone call. On March 27, 2008, Sewell was being interviewed at the district attorney's office about this case by a d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2dbca1a-e989-4913-92e2-456e8cd32d8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778358","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2502 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778358 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2502 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778358 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2dbca1a-e989-4913-92e2-456e8cd32d8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778358","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2502 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2dbca1a-e989-4913-92e2-456e8cd32d8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778358-2778358","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778358","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2502 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urt. Mother did not attend therapy beyond the intake appointment. Mother missed many of her visits as well; some were cancelled due to Mother contracting cellulitis, some due to Mother's incarceration from August 2012 until October 2012 for contempt of a domestic relations order, and some for other reasons. Mother has not seen the Children since August 2012. On December 27, 2012, Mother gave birth to another child who is not subject to this termination proceeding. On January 17, 2013, the Agency filed a petition to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to J.P.R.P. The trial court held an additional hearing on the te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778396 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778396 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of J. S76014/14 $42,000 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan to Wife by tax-free rollover. Specifically, Paragraph 9 of the Agreement provided as follows: 9. HUSBAND'S ERIE INSURANCE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN Husband agrees to transfer to Wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $42,000.00 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. This transfer will take place so as to constitute a tax free rollover. Counsel for Wife shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Husband's Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. Paragraph 11 of the Agreement addressed the parties' insurance policies and pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Husband did not agree with Wife's claim that she was entitled to any increase in the value of the account. On March 12, 2014, Wife filed a petition for special relief claiming that Husband had not complied with an oral agreement on the distribution of a retirement account to her. A hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2014. The parties and counsel appeared. On May 20, 2014, the trial court entered an order determining that the parties had reached an oral agreement modifying their written Agreement, and awarded Wife a share of the post-separation increase in Husband's Transamerica Diversified Account, in addition to the $42,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e place so as to constitute a tax free rollover. Counsel for Wife shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Husband's Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. Paragraph 11 of the Agreement addressed the parties' insurance policies and pension plans as follows: 11. INSURANCE POLICIES AND PENSION RIGHTS Unless and except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties agrees that the other, after execution of this Agreement, shall have the right to make any changes in his or her respective insurance policies, including, but not limited to, change of his or her beneficiary, increasing o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37738b27-9d22-4620-bb48-1015a090d38f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778396-2778396","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): reement (\"the Agreement\"). The Agreement was incorporated into the parties' October 12, 2012 divorce decree. The subject of this appeal concerns a paragraph that directed Husband to transfer the fixed amount of J. S76014/14 $42,000 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan to Wife by tax-free rollover. Specifically, Paragraph 9 of the Agreement provided as follows: 9. HUSBAND'S ERIE INSURANCE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN Husband agrees to transfer to Wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $42,000.00 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. This transfer will take place so as to constitute a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778624 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TERRY L. CARLSON AND WILLIAM J. CARLSON Upon the Petition of TERRY L. CARLSON. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 13-1854. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778624 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ilitary pension was a defined benefit plan, which was to be divided under the 3 Benson formula.1 The court ordered the parties to \"consult regarding whether Petitioner Terry wants to take and pay for survivor's benefits. [Terry's] counsel shall prepare a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO to accomplish the division of the pension.\" On October 8, 2012, William filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, and amend, in which he requested, in part, that the court amend the decree to provide for the immediate sale of the marital residence, rule that the parties equally share any profit or deficiency, and adjust the equalization payment. Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: And Concerning WILLIAM J. CARLSON, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. A former husband appeals from the entry of a military pension division order. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant. Catherine C. Dietz-Kilen of Harrison & Dietz-Kilen, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2 POTTERFIELD, J. A former husband appeals from the entry of a military pension division o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nsion was a defined benefit plan, which was to be divided under the 3 Benson formula.1 The court ordered the parties to \"consult regarding whether Petitioner Terry wants to take and pay for survivor's benefits. [Terry's] counsel shall prepare a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO to accomplish the division of the pension.\" On October 8, 2012, William filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, and amend, in which he requested, in part, that the court amend the decree to provide for the immediate sale of the marital residence, rule that the parties equally share any profit or deficiency, and adjust the equalization payment. Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fda0b78d-93a6-4fa2-ab16-363022a3f085","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778624-2778624","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1854","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: his order or frustrates the intent of the court. He shall release, hold harmless and indemnify [Terry] as to any actions he takes which reduce her allocated benefits. The court will retain continuing jurisdiction to modify the pension division payments or the property division specified herein, or to award compensatory alimony or damages, if [William] should waive military retired pay in favor of disability payments or take any other action (such as receipt of severance pay, bonuses or an early out payments) which reduces the amount or share [Terry] is entitled to receive. In addition, the court retains authority over this award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2778953 Extracted case name: AFL-CIO v. U.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778953 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l Pension Fund explained that Ms. Bell was not entitled to the Death Benefit because at the time of Mr. Bell's death, Ms. Bell was divorced from Mr. Bell and the Plan Administrators \"never received any actual or proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning any interest to Darlene Bell\" nor a designation of beneficiary form designating Ms. Bell as Mr. Bell's beneficiary. Nov. 1, 2012, Denial Letter, Appx. 116. Ms. Bell subsequently appealed the decision to the Board of Trustees which denied her appeal in February 2013. Pl.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 39-43. In May 2013, the Central Pension Fund was contacted by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL R. FANNING, as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, Civil Action No. 13-1937 (CKK) Plaintiff, v. BELL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 11, 2015) Plaintiff, Michael R. Fanning, Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participatin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: td. v. Zenith 7 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); \"[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.\" Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted). B. Standard of Review of ERISA Determinations In considering the determination of benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA, courts generally review the decisions of plan administrators de novo. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). If the plan grants the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3182b359-fd17-4fb5-ad0f-c2e7306b4cfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2778953-2778953","title":"CourtListener opinion 2778953","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ded by the Plan, or by the terms of the Plan itself, who is or may become entitled to receive a benefit under the Plan. The term \"Beneficiary\" shall also refer to any spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of a Participant, who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to receive all or a portion of the Participant's benefit . . . . Id. at Appx. 67, § 1.06. In turn, Section 12.05 of the Plan provides that [e]ach Participant may designate on a form furnished by the Board a Beneficiary to receive the death benefit as indicated in Section[] 12.03 . . . . In the event there is a death benefit payable ."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac3a4559-5dcf-4553-be91-8f7cc7e25520","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0037","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 P.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2779079 Extracted case name: KRENZEN v. KATZ. Extracted reporter citation: 977 P.2d 807. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0037. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2779079 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac3a4559-5dcf-4553-be91-8f7cc7e25520","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0037","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 P.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac3a4559-5dcf-4553-be91-8f7cc7e25520","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0037","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 P.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the superior court's orders relating to the Denali and remand for further proceedings regarding the proper distribution of that asset. ¶20 We reach a similar conclusion regarding Wife's IRA. The superior court ordered her IRA and Husband's 401(k) divided by QDRO such that \"all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50.\" Wife contends this was legally erroneous because contributions to her IRA during the marriage were gifts from her parents. ¶21 Husband took the position that Wife's IRA was community property. Wife's attorney advised the court that, because her allotte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac3a4559-5dcf-4553-be91-8f7cc7e25520","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0037","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 P.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e therefore vacate the superior court's orders relating to the Denali and remand for further proceedings regarding the proper distribution of that asset. ¶20 We reach a similar conclusion regarding Wife's IRA. The superior court ordered her IRA and Husband's 401(k) divided by QDRO such that \"all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50.\" Wife contends this was legally erroneous because contributions to her IRA during the marriage were gifts from her parents. ¶21 Husband took the position that Wife's IRA was community property. Wife's attorney advised the court that, bec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac3a4559-5dcf-4553-be91-8f7cc7e25520","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779079-2779079","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0037","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 P.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: sses Wife complains about were present for trial. ¶17 We do conclude, though, that the trial time allocations prevented Wife from meaningfully litigating two issues that would have required little additional time: (1) the extent to which a Denali vehicle was community property; and (2) whether Wife's IRA was her sole and separate property, in whole or in part. See Volk, 235 Ariz. at 468, ¶ 21, 333 P.3d at 795 (\"If, during the progress of a scheduled hearing, it becomes apparent that the court lacks sufficient time to receive adequate testimony, then the court must allow reasonable additional time or continue the hearing to permit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2779317 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Epsteen. Docket: 2-13-0961 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2779317 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ] lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.\")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3166197-3809-46e4-a74e-1e84214c6775","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2779317-2779317","title":"CourtListener opinion 2779317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: \"(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2780110 Extracted case name: G.A. v. D.L. Extracted reporter citation: 947 A.2d 750. Docket: 1014 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780110 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: extrinsic to the case, was not fraud and did not permit the trial court to open the divorce decree. Id. at 1360. See also Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1997) (interpreting 23 Pa.C.S.A § 3332 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 as applied to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and holding allegations of counsel's failure to communicate adequately and party's dissatisfaction with counsel were insufficient to prove fraud or allow the trial court to modify a QDRO). Similarly, Husband's claim of his attorney's failure to communicate to him the consequence of the divorce decree cannot prove fraud by Wife. That claim also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o disclose cash surrender value of insurance policy when parties had engaged in negotiations and spouse was informed of the identities of the policies); -4- J-S02037-15 Major v. Major, 518 A.2d 1267, 1273 (Pa. Super. 1986) (failure to disclose military pension did not amount to extrinsic fraud). Further, Husband admitted that he was aware of the trust, but that Wife did not turn over documents relating to it in discovery. Notes of Testimony (\"N.T.\"), 2/4/2014, at 9. Husband saw documentation about the trust and its value in 2007. Id. If Wife would not turn over trust documents in discovery, Husband could hav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to the case, was not fraud and did not permit the trial court to open the divorce decree. Id. at 1360. See also Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1997) (interpreting 23 Pa.C.S.A § 3332 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 as applied to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and holding allegations of counsel's failure to communicate adequately and party's dissatisfaction with counsel were insufficient to prove fraud or allow the trial court to modify a QDRO). Similarly, Husband's claim of his attorney's failure to communicate to him the consequence of the divorce decree cannot prove fraud by Wife. That claim also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c16f9ba-45dd-4b59-81de-a1bc65e8493a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780110-2780110","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780110","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1014 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 A.2d 750","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ecree. We affirm. The trial court made the following findings of fact: The parties, Jayne Dovin (\"Wife\") and [Husband] were married on October 17, 1997. On September 29, 2011, Wife, through counsel, filed a divorce complaint, which included a count for equitable distribution. On January 31, 2012, Wife filed an amended complaint, which omitted her previous request for economic relief. On March 19, 2012, Husband, acting pro se, filed a Response to Wife's divorce complaint and a [23 Pa.C.S.A. §] 3301(d) counter affidavit. However, rather than use a form counter affidavit, Husband modified and included his own language within"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2780113 Extracted reporter citation: 857 A.2d 194. Docket: 2280 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780113 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 781.95. The combined total retirement assets of the parties are $350,819.85 and allocating this on a 50/50% basis would award $175,409.93 to each. The Master recommends that Wife transfer $75,627.98 in retirement assets to the Husband via an appropriate [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")] which would address the PNC retirement account; the preparation and cost of same to be equally divided between the parties. -2- J-S08033-15 Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 13 ¶ 7. Wife and Husband filed exceptions. Wife's exceptions included: (1) the Master erred in failing to place a value on the pre-marital contributions made to the Tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Mall Manager and after he was terminated he liquidated approximately $24,000 of company stock to pay bills in regard to house and living expenses. He also seized approximately $5,600 from a New York Life Trust Annuity account. In addition, Husband had a 401(k) account from his employment with CBL - the company managing the Malls - which as of April 1, 2013 had a value of $94,181.95 and this is in addition to a Morgan Stanley stock account having a balance of approximately $3,792.40. Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 6-7. In discussing the distribution, the Master recommended the following: 7. The last group"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e combined total retirement assets of the parties are $350,819.85 and allocating this on a 50/50% basis would award $175,409.93 to each. The Master recommends that Wife transfer $75,627.98 in retirement assets to the Husband via an appropriate [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")] which would address the PNC retirement account; the preparation and cost of same to be equally divided between the parties. -2- J-S08033-15 Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 13 ¶ 7. Wife and Husband filed exceptions. Wife's exceptions included: (1) the Master erred in failing to place a value on the pre-marital contributions made to the Tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c9d07d8-a8a1-4bbc-a168-7892fa55b281","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780113-2780113","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780113","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2280 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 A.2d 194","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Domestic Relations at No(s): 7632 CIVIL 2012 997-DR-2012 BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Kathleen F. Dixon (\"Wife\") appeals from the equitable distribution order of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm. On September 12, 2012, Wife filed a divorce complaint against Kevin G. Dixon (\"Husband\"). The trial court assigned the case to a master, who conducted a hearing on November 15, 2013. On January 29, 2014, the Master issued a report. The Master found, \"because of the parties' employment capa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2780921 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Myers. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780921 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt of dissolution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a -6- qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding \"the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation.\" Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e affirm in part and reverse in part. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Defendant Cheryl Winter (f/k/a Cheryl Albrecht) and Douglas Albrecht were married in May 1975. In January 2003, Douglas retired from his job at Caterpillar effective February 1, 2003, and applied for his pension benefit. He elected a surviving spouse's benefit of $650 per month and named Cheryl, his then-wife, as beneficiary. Upon his February 1, 2003, retirement, Douglas began receiving $2,252 in monthly pension payments. ¶4 Cheryl and Douglas divorced in April 2004. The judgment of dissolution incorporated a property settlement agreement in which the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: olution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a -6- qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding \"the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation.\" Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8abbb08-8dc5-41bb-885c-2375f5b95637","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2780921-2780921","title":"CourtListener opinion 2780921","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: curred in the judgment and opinion. ______________________________________________________________________________ OPINION ¶1 Plaintiff, the estate of Douglas Albrecht (the Estate), challenged the payment of the proceeds of a life insurance policy and a surviving spouse annuity to defendant Cheryl Albrecht, Douglas's former wife, arguing Cheryl waived her rights to the insurance proceeds and annuity in the judgment of dissolution. The trial court found that Cheryl waived her rights to the insurance policy proceeds but not to the surviving spouse annuity. Cheryl appealed and the Estate cross-appealed. We affirm in p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2781321 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 865 MDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2781321 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of $40,000. Id. at 48. He retired from the police force in February 2011 and unsuccessfully ran for magisterial district judge. Id. at 41. Husband currently works as a driver for a waste management company earning $41,000 per year. Id. at 10, 39. He has a pension from the Borough of Chambersburg that pays a gross amount of $4,641.44, or $3,950.15 net, per month. Id. at 35; Master's Report, 8/15/13, at 3 ¶15. If Husband is married at the time of his death, the pension plan offers survivor benefits, at no cost, to his spouse in the amount of fifty percent of 1 Following a support conference on February 4, 2013,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: directing in paragraph #19(a) the payment of survivor benefits to Wife under this scenario. Id. at 12–13. The provision of the Master's Report to which the trial court referred, stated as follows: a. The attorneys are directed to prepare an appropriate Domestic Relations Order, in cooperation with the plan administrator, directing the plan administrator to pay 55% of the -8- J-A34021-14 monthly payment of [Husband's] pension, together with the cost of living increases as awarded from time to time, directly to [Wife]. This payment shall be taxable to [Wife]. If [Wife] predeceases [Husband], the entire benefit shall revert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ar. Id. at 10, 39. He has a pension from the Borough of Chambersburg that pays a gross amount of $4,641.44, or $3,950.15 net, per month. Id. at 35; Master's Report, 8/15/13, at 3 ¶15. If Husband is married at the time of his death, the pension plan offers survivor benefits, at no cost, to his spouse in the amount of fifty percent of 1 Following a support conference on February 4, 2013, the trial court entered a support order that day. Wife's gross income was set at $23,885 based on her part-time employment with Blaine Windows plus her unemployment compensation. Husband's gross annual income, excluding his pension, was set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5659f0f9-16c4-423b-bcbc-98bf65c3e178","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2781321-2781321","title":"CourtListener opinion 2781321","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"865 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 4 order of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in this divorce action. We affirm. After a nearly twenty-nine-year marriage, Richard Allen Swartz (\"Husband\"), age fifty-five, filed a complaint in divorce on April 29, 2011, that included a count for equitable distribution. N.T., 2/25/13, at 8, 40. On June 30, 2011, the court entered an order, upon stipulation of the parties: 1) prohibiting Husband's contact with Wife and providing that upon violation of the order, \"Wife may bring a Protection from Abuse action against him,\" and 2) proscribing Husband's ability to \"raise, as a defense or objection, the passage of time be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2782328 Docket: 140350. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2782328 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: HIEF JUSTICE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \\401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: sex County, and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. Justice Kelsey took no part in the consideration of this case. _______________ JUSTICE MILLETTE, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): omestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \\401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10952a38-741c-4bf3-8077-d8a6e236c22b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782328-2782328","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"140350","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: CE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \\401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2782750 Extracted case name: JOSEPHINE WHITTHORNE YOUNG v. WILLIAM F. YOUNG. Extracted reporter citation: 342 S.W.3d 19. Docket: W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2782750 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rther, the trial court's decision to distribute this property through alimony rather than a property division is explained by Wife's affidavit—that neither the City of Memphis retirement/pension plan nor the deferred compensation plan \"were . . . subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" and therefore, \"the payments had to come from [Husband] as they could not come from the City of Memphis directly.\" The record contains -14- no transcripts from the original trial, and Husband offers no evidence to dispute Wife's explanation for the trial court's treatment of this property. As such, we can only credit Wife's testimony that the trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: M F. YOUNG, JR. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 1641518RD Robert Samual Weiss, Judge No. W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 26, 2015 This post-divorce dispute concerns a divorce decree that required husband to pay one-half of his retirement benefits to wife as alimony in solido. Fourteen years after the divorce, Husband returned to the trial court to terminate the payments on the ground that by the terms of the divorce decree, husband had been substantially overpaying wife. The trial court denied husband's petition on the alternative grounds of res judicata, and a finding that the divorce decree oblig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as of the date of the entry of this Final Decree of Divorce, and which plan had a balance as of December 31, 1999, of $68,657.77 [hereinafter \"City of Memphis DROP plan\"]. 11. As alimony in solido, the parties shall equally divide [Husband's] retirement/pension plan with the City of Memphis . . . , as of the date of the entry of this Final Decree of Divorce, and to which plan [Husband] has contributed $60,114.96 through March 24, 2000 [hereinafter \"City of Memphis retirement/pension plan\"]. 12. As alimony in solido, the parties shall equally divide [Husband's] deferred compensation plan with the City of Mem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7900a08-bf96-4886-bb59-9cdc3564e040","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2782750-2782750","title":"CourtListener opinion 2782750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -","extracted_reporter_citation":"342 S.W.3d 19","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: trial court's decision to distribute this property through alimony rather than a property division is explained by Wife's affidavit—that neither the City of Memphis retirement/pension plan nor the deferred compensation plan \"were . . . subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" and therefore, \"the payments had to come from [Husband] as they could not come from the City of Memphis directly.\" The record contains -14- no transcripts from the original trial, and Husband offers no evidence to dispute Wife's explanation for the trial court's treatment of this property. As such, we can only credit Wife's testimony that the trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2d961fd-bbfa-4358-9c0e-ebfa6a7b157f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2783008 Extracted case name: SONIA KOCHHAR v. AMAR NATH BANSAL. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783008 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2d961fd-bbfa-4358-9c0e-ebfa6a7b157f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2d961fd-bbfa-4358-9c0e-ebfa6a7b157f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783008-2783008","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783008","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e not subject to attack because of any prior stay violation. Klass, 377 Md. at 24. The Court further held that the \"remaining aspects of the judgment -- the grant of a monetary award . . . the reduction of that award to judgment, the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing a lump sum distribution to [the wife] from [the husband's] profit sharing plan . . . and the grant to [the wife] of use and possession of a [jointly titled vehicle]\" -- were \"subject to the stay.\" Id. at 29. The Court observed that there is \"some debate as to whether actions taken in contravention of an automatic stay under § 362(a) are absolu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2783346 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Rock. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783346 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2012 is the addition of the word ‘retirement' before the word ‘benefit.'\" The district court filed the amended DRO on August 2. The August 2 DRO stated, in relevant part, that \"[Jacobson's] interest in the plan shall be one-half the amount of each monthly retirement benefit\" (emphasis added). Moore left his job as a police officer with the City of Minneapolis in September 2012 because of a work-related injury and began receiving a monthly disability benefit of $3,526.49 through his PERA plan. In February 2013, Jacobson moved the district court for an order (1) \"[f]inding that [Moore] impermissibly altered [her] property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ct-based attorney fees. We affirm. FACTS In April 2010, the district court entered a judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of appellant Stephen Joseph Moore and respondent Lisa Jo Jacobson. The district court found that Moore \"has a defined benefit pension plan through the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).\" The district court found that if Moore \"were to have terminated his employment on May 31, 2009, it would pay him $3,550.79 per month at a retirement age of 55.\" The district court awarded Jacobson as property \"fifty percent (50%) of [Moore's] pension, using a valuation date of November 1,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: parties were married during which [Moore] was a contributing member to PERA and the denominator of which shall be the total number of years [Moore] was a contributing member of PERA at the time of his termination. In 2012, Jacobson submitted a proposed domestic relations order (DRO) to the district court. The district court filed the DRO on June 6. The DRO directed PERA to pay Jacobson a \"fixed percentage of [Moore's] interest in the pension plan\" based on a percentage of Moore's \"monthly retirement and disability benefit\" (emphasis added). Moore asked the court to vacate the June 6 DRO because \"it was submitted over the obj"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f2322dc5-38c8-4114-bdef-6b1a1443fc31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783346-2783346","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783346","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: district court found that if Moore \"were to have terminated his employment on May 31, 2009, it would pay him $3,550.79 per month at a retirement age of 55.\" The district court awarded Jacobson as property \"fifty percent (50%) of [Moore's] pension, using a valuation date of November 1, 2009.\" Later, the district court issued an order \"clarifying and amending\" the property division in the dissolution judgment as follows: [Moore's] Pension. [Jacobson] is awarded fifty percent of the marital portion of [Moore's] pension valued as of November 1, 2009. [Jacobson's] interest in the plan shall be one-half the amount of each"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2783468 Extracted reporter citation: 846 N.W.2d 205. Docket: A-14-335. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783468 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: count in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of assets and debts, Rachel was awarded $14,943 from Sean's retirement accounts by QDRO. Sean has timely appeale"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rected to be responsible for the outstanding debt to Chase credit card. The court also determined that Rachel was indebted to Sean for retroactive child support of $5,229. The court stated that it took that amount into account in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. Sean was given credit for $13,538 as interest reimbursement pursuant to the court's temporary order which provided that Sean was to be given credit for all interest paid on the mortgage during the pendency of the proceedings. Sean was given credit for children's expenses of $3,425; a Reno trip reimbursement of $1,984; and one-half of home repairs of $225."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nd one-half of home repairs of $225. The total of those amounts was taken into account in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"592921c2-9084-425e-a7ec-dd69d5ce0035","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783468-2783468","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783468","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-14-335","extracted_reporter_citation":"846 N.W.2d 205","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of assets and debts, Rachel was awarded $14,943 from Sean's retirement accounts by QDRO. Sean has timely appeale"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f1d3389-ad85-4e0b-8491-e27fece76d14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783787","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2783787 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of PHILLIP and GLORIA PINON. PHILLIP LOUIS PINON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783787 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f1d3389-ad85-4e0b-8491-e27fece76d14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783787","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f1d3389-ad85-4e0b-8491-e27fece76d14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783787","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ipulation and judgment provided, \"The court reserves jurisdiction over spousal support for the benefit of both parties until the remarriage or death of either party.\" It was further stipulated Gloria was \"entitled to one-half (1/2) interest in Petitioner's Retirement Benefits with the County of Orange.\" Judgment was entered on October 2, 1996. Phillip remarried in April 1997. In 1997, the parties executed a stipulated domestic relations order, prepared by Gloria, dividing their interest in Phillip's retirement benefits. In 1998, the parties executed an agreement, prepared by Gloria, in which Gloria agreed to waive her inte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f1d3389-ad85-4e0b-8491-e27fece76d14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2783787-2783787","title":"CourtListener opinion 2783787","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: It was further stipulated Gloria was \"entitled to one-half (1/2) interest in Petitioner's Retirement Benefits with the County of Orange.\" Judgment was entered on October 2, 1996. Phillip remarried in April 1997. In 1997, the parties executed a stipulated domestic relations order, prepared by Gloria, dividing their interest in Phillip's retirement benefits. In 1998, the parties executed an agreement, prepared by Gloria, in which Gloria agreed to waive her interest in the retirement benefits for payment of $14,400. 3 B. The Modification of Child Support in 2013 On September 23, 2013, Gloria filed a request to modify spousal s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2784107 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2784107 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: OPM's petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision. DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶2 The appellant, a former federal employee, submitted his application to commence Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement benefits in 2010. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 102-05. The appellant was previously married and divorced during his federal employment. Id. at 77, 102. The divorce proceedings produced four documents that are material to this appeal. Those documents are: (1) a March 3, 1995 Marital Settlement Agreement, id. at 62-76; (2) a March 3, 1995 Family Court Ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a March 3, 1995 Family Court Judgment and Decree of Dissolution, id. at 77-81; (3) a June 8, 1995 Domestic Relations Order (1995 DRO), id. at 55—61; and (4) a March 13, 2013 Amended Domestic Relations Order (amended DRO), id. at 50-54. ¶3 The appellant's pension was subject to the terms of the 1995 marital settlement agreement which resolved the property rights acquired by each party from the marriage. Id. at 63, 65-67. The 1995 DRO was drafted to comply with OPM regulations for apportioning benefits under the CSRS. Id. at 55. The 1995 DRO provided that the intervenor would receive a former spouse survivor annu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ard's case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 2 FINAL ORDER ¶1 The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which reversed its reconsideration decision regarding the processing of the appellant's amended domestic relations order (DRO). For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT OPM's petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision. DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶2 The appellant, a former federal employee, submitted his application to commence Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement benefits in 2010. Initial Appeal File"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1532140-7e78-4a1b-935d-c389b11ff81f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2784107-2784107","title":"CourtListener opinion 2784107","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: property rights acquired by each party from the marriage. Id. at 63, 65-67. The 1995 DRO was drafted to comply with OPM regulations for apportioning benefits under the CSRS. Id. at 55. The 1995 DRO provided that the intervenor would receive a former spouse survivor annuity at the maximum possible amount. Id. at 59. The amended DRO was drafted to correct provisions in the 1995 DRO involving CSRS benefits. Id. at 51. In 3 particular, the amended DRO changed the former spouse survivor annuity to provide a \"prorata share\" based on the duration of the marriage. Id. at 52. ¶4 In 2011, OPM notified the appellant that it had p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2788825 Extracted case name: COA JOHN T. WALKER APPELLANT v. MARY M. WALKER APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788825 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 012, Mary filed for a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The Jefferson Davis County Chancery Court entered its judgment of divorce on July 1, 2013. The chancellor also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QRDO) on July 1, 2013. Aggrieved, John appeals asserting the following issues: whether the trial court erred when it denied John's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law; whether the trial court committed manifest error in granting Mary a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; whether the trial court erred when it di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y Essence's $504.30 medical bill; (4) ordering that John pay for Mary's knee injections; (5) ordering that John maintain medical insurance for Mary and the children, and that he pay any and all costs over the insurance; (6) awarding Mary one-half of John's retirement benefits from the U.S. Postal Service; (7) awarding Mary one-half of John's retirement benefits from the U.S. Military; (8) ordering John to pay Mary's current rent and to continue to pay each month up to $500 for future housing for Mary; (9) awarding John the marital home, but if it is sold, ordering him to split the profits with Mary; (10) awarding Mary perio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: filed for a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The Jefferson Davis County Chancery Court entered its judgment of divorce on July 1, 2013. The chancellor also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QRDO) on July 1, 2013. Aggrieved, John appeals asserting the following issues: whether the trial court erred when it denied John's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law; whether the trial court committed manifest error in granting Mary a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; whether the trial court erred when it di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47149551-a2e9-4cb2-8651-822fdd64e0a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788825-2788825","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: consider all applicable factors from Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), or to rule that any of the factors were not applicable. With regard to this issue, the law in Mississippi is clear: Factor tests, such as provided in Ferguson for property division and Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993), for alimony, must be considered on the record in every case. These factor considerations are not only essential for appellate purposes, but also for trial courts, as they provide a checklist to assist in the accuracy of their rulings. Following these guidelines reduces unintended errors that may"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2788932 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Myers. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788932 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding \"the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation.\" Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relationship, it b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nce proceeds, found that the trial court erred in awarding those proceeds to her and the judgment for her was reversed; however, with respect to the provisions of the settlement agreement dealing with the surviving spouse annuity, the language listing the pension payments demonstrated an intent that decedent's former spouse would waive any interest and that she would continue to receive the surviving spouse annuity, which would leave her with a monthly pension income nearly equal to decedent's, and therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that she did not waive her rights to the surviving spouse annuit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of dissolution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding \"the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation.\" Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relationship"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e128298c-d85c-4cf5-8054-ac92b05476fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788932-2788932","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: No. 3-13-0651 Filed February 20, 2015 Held In an action by decedent's estate and his surviving former spouse (Note: This syllabus challenging the trial court's award paying the proceeds of a life constitutes no part of the insurance policy on decedent and a surviving spouse annuity to opinion of the court but decedent's former wife based on the trial court's finding that the has been prepared by the former wife waived her rights to the proceeds of the insurance policy Reporter of Decisions but not the surviving spouse annuity in the property settlement, the for the convenience of appellate court, in considering the parties' cr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2788939 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bushnell. Extracted reporter citation: 328 P.3d 608. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788939 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , PLLP; Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Kevin John Fries (Fries) appeals from the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We affirm, order that Cadena is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, and remand for determination of those fees. ISSUES ¶2 We review the following issues: 1. Did the District Court err in its application of the law regarding division of Fries' pension? 2. Is e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The Court finds that [Fries] has earned Plan benefits that are community/marital property of [Fries] and [Cadena]. (b) The Court awards [Cadena] a separate interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits equal to 50% of the marital property portion of [Fries'] normal retirement benefit accrued to the effective date of [Cadena]'s Plan benefits (\"Alternate Payee's Separate Percentage Interest\"). The effective date of [Cadena]'s Plan benefits is hereinafter referred to as \"Alternate Payee's Benefit Commencement Date.\" (c) Alternate Payee's Separate Percentage Interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits shall be determined using the following for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: affirm, order that Cadena is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, and remand for determination of those fees. ISSUES ¶2 We review the following issues: 1. Did the District Court err in its application of the law regarding division of Fries' pension? 2. Is either party entitled to attorney fees? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Brenda Cadena (Cadena) and Fries married on June 7, 1980. The marriage was dissolved by an order of the District Court on March 13, 2000. The order approved a settlement agreement that Cadena and Fries entered into on February 29, 2000. In the settlement agreement, C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0697d622-58c8-4690-972a-8e216b5c0923","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2788939-2788939","title":"CourtListener opinion 2788939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"328 P.3d 608","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ssed the division of the pension until Cadena filed a proposed QDRO on November 12, 2013. The pension had not fully vested or begun to pay out benefits by this time. In the agreement, Cadena proposed to divide the pension as follows: 2 4. DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S SEPARATE PERCENTAGE INTEREST IN PARTICIPANT'S BENEFITS. (a) The Court finds that [Fries] has earned Plan benefits that are community/marital property of [Fries] and [Cadena]. (b) The Court awards [Cadena] a separate interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits equal to 50% of the marital property portion of [Fries'] normal retirement benefit accrued to the ef"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5da848ce-f5f6-467d-9657-12166936af37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2789367 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2789367 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5da848ce-f5f6-467d-9657-12166936af37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5da848ce-f5f6-467d-9657-12166936af37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being processed and, on June 29, 2011, petitioner telephoned respondent and again stated that he did not wish to retire. Petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5da848ce-f5f6-467d-9657-12166936af37","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789367-2789367","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e Buffalo Police Department in 1988. With an eye towards retirement, he met with a retirement information representative in April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2789648 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.W.2d 156. Docket: 14–1201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2789648 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ship with one of his clients, then assaulted her after the relationship deteriorated. The attorney pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury, a serious misdemeanor. See Iowa Code §§ 708.1(1), .2(2) (2011). In addition, the attorney did not finalize the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in this client's divorce case for two years, and he withdrew this client's fee from his trust account before doing the work. The Board filed a complaint alleging the attorney violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (lack of diligence), 32:1.8(j) (sexual relationship with a client), 32:8.4(b) (criminal act adversely reflecting on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ted a proposed divorce decree and sent copies to Doe and her husband. The stipulated decree of dissolution was filed and approved by the district court in March. It provided, in relevant part, that Jane Doe was to be awarded $110,000.00 from her husband's retirement plan and that \"[Jane Doe]'s attorney shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents to effectuate this transfer.\" At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, \"Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ate this transfer.\" At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, \"Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive the pension documents from [your ex-husband].\" That same day, Blessum wrote Doe's ex-husband asking him to forward his pension documents. Doe's ex-husband provided the relevant documents to Blessum two months later. Handwritten notes in 1Due to the sensitive nature of the complaint and the underlying facts, we use the pseudonym \"Jane Doe\" to refer to the complaina"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"579efd63-976a-418c-9f14-cf6085dd7772","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2789648-2789648","title":"CourtListener opinion 2789648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Blessum received a faxed letter from Jane Doe's ex-husband himself. The letter read, Dear Zane, In regards to our QDRO we agree to the following changes to your draft submitted to [ex-husband's pension provider] dated December 21, 2009. Item #4: The Alternate Payee's [(Jane Doe's)] accounts effective date shall begin as of August 1, 2008. Item # 7 [Line struck through]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 5 (Signed) [Doe's ex-husband] [Jane Doe] 2 Both Jane Doe and her ex-husband had signed the letter at the bottom and initialed the line that had been struck through. The fax cover sheet from Doe'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2791228 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Epsteen. Docket: 2-13-0961 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2791228 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ] lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.\")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"467fed46-750a-4f20-8a55-48ea780e6558","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2791228-2791228","title":"CourtListener opinion 2791228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-13-0961 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: \"(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a5529a5-c9ff-41e9-9e2e-065af3d89cdb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792103","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2869 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2792103 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2869 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2792103 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a5529a5-c9ff-41e9-9e2e-065af3d89cdb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792103","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2869 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a5529a5-c9ff-41e9-9e2e-065af3d89cdb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792103-2792103","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792103","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2869 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: it shall not be merged with such decree.\" Post-Nuptial Agreement, 11/8/13, at 2. The objective of Mother's petition was to enforce/increase the amount of Father's monthly child support obligation from $697 (which Father paid pursuant to a December 31, 2013 domestic relations order issued after Mother filed for child support on November 5, 2013) to $1,100 J-S24028-15 (which Father agreed to pay in the November 8, 2013 post-nuptial agreement). Mother had also filed to modify child support on March 24, 2014. A conference was held on April 29, 2014, after which Mother's modification action was dismissed and the prior order for $697"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2dafd78-e201-44c4-8941-e37fd88cc9b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 P.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2792876 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Drexler. Extracted reporter citation: 245 P.3d 336. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2792876 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2dafd78-e201-44c4-8941-e37fd88cc9b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 P.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2dafd78-e201-44c4-8941-e37fd88cc9b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 P.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nator shall be [his] total number of years employed by a railroad employer at retirement, and then dividing the product by two. Further, this Court will have continuing jurisdiction to modify this Decree of Divorce so as to assure its qualification as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶4] Mr. Greenmeyer retired in March 2009 when he reached the age of sixty. He began receiving retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. The parties were not in communication with each other then, and Ms. Greenmeyer was unaware of his retirement until some years later. Upon reaching the age of sixty two, Ms. Greenmeyer applied for her retire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2dafd78-e201-44c4-8941-e37fd88cc9b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 P.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume. BURKE, Chief Justice. [¶1] Sandra Greenmeyer was awarded a portion of Jacob Greenmeyer's railroad retirement benefits in the decree of divorce terminating their marriage. For reasons explored below, those benefits were paid to Mr. Greenmeyer. Ms. Greenmeyer filed a post-divorce motion seeking to recover the benefits. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment against Mr. Greenmeyer. He challenges that decision in this appeal. We will affirm. ISSUE [¶2]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2dafd78-e201-44c4-8941-e37fd88cc9b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2792876-2792876","title":"CourtListener opinion 2792876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 P.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l be [his] total number of years employed by a railroad employer at retirement, and then dividing the product by two. Further, this Court will have continuing jurisdiction to modify this Decree of Divorce so as to assure its qualification as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶4] Mr. Greenmeyer retired in March 2009 when he reached the age of sixty. He began receiving retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. The parties were not in communication with each other then, and Ms. Greenmeyer was unaware of his retirement until some years later. Upon reaching the age of sixty two, Ms. Greenmeyer applied for her retire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2794973 Extracted case name: M ARYLAND ET AL. v. C ARROLL T HIERGARTNER J EFFREY W ALTERS V. B ALTIMORE C OUNTY. Extracted reporter citation: 684 A.2d 1338. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2794973 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: between [those] accruing by reason of age and service versus those accruing as the result of a disability\"); cf. Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 651, 890 A.2d 737 (2006) (DROP payments are pension benefits for purposes of qualified domestic relations order). Nor does there appear to be any dispute that the lump sum DROP payment must be accounted for in some way in the formula set forth in LE §9-503(e)(2).7 7 Counsel for Mr. Thiergartner and Mr. Walters has cited a provision of the County Code that provides that benefits from a deferred compensation program do not \"effect a reduction of the amount of any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Baltimore County Maryland, et al. v. Carroll Thiergartner No. 44, September Term, 2014 Jeffrey Walters v. Baltimore County Maryland No. 58, September Term, 2014 Workers' Compensation Benefits - Presumption Accorded Public Safety Employees - Offset for Retirement Benefits - Deferred Retirement Option Benefits. The State Workers' Compensation Act includes a special presumption for public safety employees that certain medical conditions are the result of an occupational disease and are compensable under the Act. Benefits paid as a result of that presumption, however, are capped such that the weekly total of those benefits and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a County firefighter who is eligible to retire and has the requisite years of service may elect to participate in the DROP. The employee then continues to work for the County as an active employee while deferring certain compensation related to the forgone pension payments and ongoing employee pension contributions in a special account. Baltimore County Code, §5-1-302(b)-(e). In particular, when the employee elects to participate in the DROP, an account is created for the employee that includes (1) an amount equivalent to a year's worth of pension payments for each year 5 that the employee continues to work for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd54dd15-9d09-41df-b3ee-7df955cf8389","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2794973-2794973","title":"CourtListener opinion 2794973","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"684 A.2d 1338","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hose] accruing by reason of age and service versus those accruing as the result of a disability\"); cf. Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 651, 890 A.2d 737 (2006) (DROP payments are pension benefits for purposes of qualified domestic relations order). Nor does there appear to be any dispute that the lump sum DROP payment must be accounted for in some way in the formula set forth in LE §9-503(e)(2).7 7 Counsel for Mr. Thiergartner and Mr. Walters has cited a provision of the County Code that provides that benefits from a deferred compensation program do not \"effect a reduction of the amount of any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2795003 Extracted case name: POLLARD v. POLLARD. BENHAM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795003 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by appellant Kayleen Pollard (Wife) against Brian Pollard (Husband). A bench trial was conducted, after which the final judgment and decree was entered July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teacher's Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to \"restore\" Husband as her sole beneficiary with survivorship rights within thirty days of the date of the order. By the time the final judgment was entered, however, Wife was precluded from changing her survivor benefits election. Whether or not she was aware"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: res to be paid to her.'\" Id. at 417. As the parties later discovered, the Navy did not require any division of the husband's retirement benefits to be paid to the wife, and the wife brought a contempt action when the husband refused to enter into an Agreed Domestic Relations Order (ADRO) granting her 6 fifty percent of his retirement benefits. Alternatively, the wife sought an order setting aside the divorce decree on the ground of mutual mistake of the parties. Id. at 417-418. The trial court found the parties had a mutual misunderstanding of the Navy's regulations relating to a former spouse's share of retirement pay, but, i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab90d688-a4d9-4467-8e14-f7f4167f2da4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795003-2795003","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795003","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ed July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teacher's Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to \"restore\" Husband as her sole beneficiary wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2795768 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY K. BOLAND-CHAMBERS AND RYAN P. CHAMBERS Upon the Petition of MARY K. BOLAND-. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 14-0920. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795768 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: RYAN P. CHAMBERS, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge. A husband appeals the district court's refusal to add language to a QDRO to protect his interest in his former wife's IPERS pension and the court's decision to set aside gifts, inheritance, and premarital property to his wife. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Kodi A. Brotherson of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Vogel, P.J., McDonald,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e case proceeded to trial in December 2013. In the dissolution decree entered in March 2014, the court decided issues of child custody, physical care, child support, and property division; however, only the property division issues related to the parties' retirement accounts and funds set aside to Mary have been raised on appeal. II. Scope and Standard of Review. We review dissolution actions de novo as they are heard in equity. In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). \"[W]e examine the 3 entire record and adjudicate anew the issue of the property distribution.\" Id. While we give weight to the findi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: _________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge. A husband appeals the district court's refusal to add language to a QDRO to protect his interest in his former wife's IPERS pension and the court's decision to set aside gifts, inheritance, and premarital property to his wife. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Kodi A. Brotherson of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Vogel, P.J., McDonald, J., and Scott, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order purs"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1776bd-7dbe-423a-8714-f8b9da5e3060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795768-2795768","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795768","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0920","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: d be able to designate her postretirement death benefits to pass to whomever she chooses. As to (b)—preretirement death benefits, Schochenmaier, IPERS general counsel, testified: Q. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is prepared simply giving the alternate payee [Ryan] 50 percent of the marital portion and there is no provision for a preretirement death benefit, will the alternate payee receive anything from IPERS if the 3 We note per the information in the record, under Option 4, the monthly joint and survivor death benefit payments IPERS will make to the alternate payee cannot be subdivided. So if Mary is req"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2795770 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEONARD JOHN WEIS AND DIANE DOROTHY WEIS Upon the Petition of DIANE DOROTHY WEIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-0763. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795770 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ith respect to Leonard's premarital property, the district court properly exercised its discretion when declining to exclude this asset and distributing the property between the parties. In regard to Leonard's pension benefits, we remand for the entry of a QDRO. Consequently, we affirm the dissolution decree as modified. I. Factual and Procedural Background At the time of trial, Leonard was eighty-two years old. In 1955 he began working at H&W Motor Express and was employed there until his retirement in 1991. He received a pension from this company through the Teamsters Union. He also retired from the Iowa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: at the district court failed to apply the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 528.21A (2013) when awarding spousal support, and that the award was improperly established as a lump sum payment. He also asserts the court did not clarify how his Teamsters pension was to be divided, nor did it consider the survivorship benefits. His final claim asserts the district court should have credited him with his premarital cash infusion into the marital home and the resulting increase in value. We conclude the district court considered the appropriate factors when allocating the property and awarding spousal support. Ad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: which outlined the Teamsters pension and its accompanying survivorship benefits. 12 Nonetheless, the district court did order that Diane receive \"one-half of the marital share of the Teamsters pension, which shall be divided by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" This is consistent with the holding in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Leonard worked for a total of thirty-six years qualifying under the plan. Half of those years Leonard was married to Diane. Therefore, under the district court's order, which we find equitable, Diane's share of the Teamsters monthly benefit pension is to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c8e87d7-e284-45ff-9ecf-d32d0780d46e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2795770-2795770","title":"CourtListener opinion 2795770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: en into the marriage, and they also had one daughter together. All the children are well into adulthood. Diane filed a petition for dissolution on July 3, 2013. A pre-trial conference was held on November 13, 2013, at which time the parties agreed to some property division, but could not agree as to other issues. While not affecting the district court nor our resolution of the issues, the precipitating event to the dissolution petition being filed was a conflict over Leonard's will. Executed in September 2012, this will gave Diane a life estate in \"whatever he left behind, with the residue going to his children rather th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2797516 Extracted case name: JASON PULLIAM v. JILL IRENE PULLIAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2797516 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion in Dennis, id. at 656, that the DROP payments were to be considered retirement assets within the meaning of the EDRO.2 The court noted that 2 In its opinion, the circuit court refers to the requested EDRO as a \"qualified domestic relations order,\" or a QDRO. Although both EDROs and QDROs serve the (continued . . . ) 3 same purpose, EDROs involve benefits from the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System and are governed by the Code of Maryland Regulations (\"COMAR\") 22.01.03.03, whereas QDROs are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). Use of the term \"QDRO\" in lieu of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cronym are creatures of ERISA, the label \"QDRO\" may have achieved a broader meaning. As is often the case with a living language, the term has sometimes leapt the boundaries of its formal meaning to encompass generically orders in divorces that distribute retirement plan benefits, much as \"xerox copy\" became a synonym for \"photocopy\" regardless of the machine used to produce it, and the verb \"google\" has come to mean searching the Internet regardless of the search engine being used. Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 247 (2014). The acquired broader meaning of the QDRO is understandable given its history. In 1974, Co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vorce proceedings in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Appellant and his then-wife, Appellee Jill Irene Pulliam, agreed, as reflected in the consent judgment entered, that she would receive one half of the marital share of his Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System (\"LEOPS\") pension. The parties dispute whether, pursuant to the agreement and consent judgment, a voluntary Deferred Retirement Option Program (\"DROP\") benefit is part of Husband's pension plan and properly included in Wife's eligible domestic relations order (\"EDRO\"). The circuit court concluded that Husband's LEOPS pension plan encompassed the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a040ec24-abf5-4cff-af9e-8083fb8f9847","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2797516-2797516","title":"CourtListener opinion 2797516","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ) 3 same purpose, EDROs involve benefits from the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System and are governed by the Code of Maryland Regulations (\"COMAR\") 22.01.03.03, whereas QDROs are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). Use of the term \"QDRO\" in lieu of \"EDRO\" or other acronyms for similar orders, though technically inaccurate, has become recurrent: [A]lthough the [QDRO] concept and acronym are creatures of ERISA, the label \"QDRO\" may have achieved a broader meaning. As is often the case with a living language, the term has sometimes leapt the boundaries of its for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c315a0c9-3c8e-469a-95ea-96bf2c1d1e3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2800501","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2800501 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2800501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c315a0c9-3c8e-469a-95ea-96bf2c1d1e3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2800501","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c315a0c9-3c8e-469a-95ea-96bf2c1d1e3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2800501-2800501","title":"CourtListener opinion 2800501","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: did nothing other than to correct a typographical error pertaining to which party was charged with the responsibility of placing the former marital home on the market. 9 See supra note 8. 4 III. Discussion The regular practice of inserting language in domestic relations orders aimed at restricting the conduct of each party towards the other is at the center of this appeal.10 While the need for specific directives aimed at protecting individuals is not itself in question, the issuance of mutual protective orders is clearly governed by statute. See W.Va. Code § 48-27-507 (2014). This case involves the issuance of an order outs"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f4bfcbe-0cff-4b48-adcf-6bd1f9ac9f7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225","title":"CourtListener opinion 2801225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"552 U.S. 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2801225 Extracted case name: WBS- GGH v. HOLLISTER EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP TRUST. Extracted reporter citation: 552 U.S. 248. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2801225 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f4bfcbe-0cff-4b48-adcf-6bd1f9ac9f7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225","title":"CourtListener opinion 2801225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"552 U.S. 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f4bfcbe-0cff-4b48-adcf-6bd1f9ac9f7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225","title":"CourtListener opinion 2801225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"552 U.S. 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the district court held after trial—they have not proposed or sought any remedy with respect to this claim. The Plan Participants do not contest this holding on appeal; thus, they have waived any challenge to the district court's ruling on this claim. II. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders 6 Separately, James DeFazio raises an issue relating to the handling of his portion of his former wife's Plan account. We conclude that these orders were \"qualified domestic relations orders\" under ERISA and complied with the Act's requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D). DeFazio's related claims are without merit. III. The Cross-Appeal In th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f4bfcbe-0cff-4b48-adcf-6bd1f9ac9f7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225","title":"CourtListener opinion 2801225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"552 U.S. 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nts\" and the \"Plan,\" respectively) sued the Plan, Hollister, Inc., Hollister's parent company The Firm of John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. (\"JDS\"), and various Plan fiduciaries for violation of their rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying this eleven-year dispute, and we do not recount them here. I. The Appeal The Plan Participants appeal the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant companies and fiduciaries following multiple pre-trial motions and a 2 fifteen-day bench trial. The district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2f4bfcbe-0cff-4b48-adcf-6bd1f9ac9f7c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2801225-2801225","title":"CourtListener opinion 2801225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"552 U.S. 248","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ct court held after trial—they have not proposed or sought any remedy with respect to this claim. The Plan Participants do not contest this holding on appeal; thus, they have waived any challenge to the district court's ruling on this claim. II. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders 6 Separately, James DeFazio raises an issue relating to the handling of his portion of his former wife's Plan account. We conclude that these orders were \"qualified domestic relations orders\" under ERISA and complied with the Act's requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D). DeFazio's related claims are without merit. III. The Cross-Appeal In th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2802178 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEONARD JOHN WEIS AND DIANE DOROTHY WEIS Upon the Petition of DIANE DOROTHY WEIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-0763. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2802178 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: th respect to Leonard's premarital property, the district court properly exercised its discretion when declining to exclude this asset and distributing the property between the parties. In regard to Leonard's pension benefits, we remand for the entry of a QDRO. Consequently, we affirm the dissolution decree as modified and remand. 1 This matter comes before us, after granting Diane Weis's petition for rehearing. The original opinion, filed on April 22, 2015, is vacated. 3 I. Factual and Procedural Background At the time of trial, Leonard was eighty-two years old. In 1955 he began working at H&W Motor Expre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hat the district court failed to apply the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 528.21A (2013) when awarding spousal support and that the award was improperly established as a lump sum payment. He also asserts the court did not clarify how his Teamsters pension was to be divided, nor did it consider the survivorship benefits. His final claim asserts the district court should have credited him with his premarital cash infusion into the marital home and the resulting increase in value. We conclude the district court considered the appropriate factors when allocating the property and awarding spousal support. Ho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: trial that outlined the Teamsters pension and its accompanying survivorship benefits. Nonetheless, the district court did order that Diane receive \"one-half of the marital share of the Teamsters pension, which shall be divided by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" This is consistent with the holding in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Leonard worked for a total of thirty-six years qualifying under the plan. Half of those years Leonard was married to Diane. Therefore, under the district court's order, which we find equitable, Diane's share of the Teamsters monthly benefit pension is to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c46f82ed-65a1-422e-8762-347a960ec4e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2802178-2802178","title":"CourtListener opinion 2802178","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0763","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: en into the marriage, and they also had one daughter together. All the children are well into adulthood. Diane filed a petition for dissolution on July 3, 2013. A pre-trial conference was held on November 13, 2013, at which time the parties agreed to some property division, but could not agree as to other issues. While not affecting the district court nor our resolution of the issues, the precipitating event to the dissolution petition being filed was a conflict over Leonard's will. Executed in September 2012, this will gave Diane a life estate in \"whatever he left behind, with the residue going to his children rather th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2803445 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ross. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2803445 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.\")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. -2- ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a \"petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order.\" She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7d3ce44-4d26-4ba8-93de-cdd645d53a8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2803445-2803445","title":"CourtListener opinion 2803445","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: is governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: \"(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the claimant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2805614 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2805614 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ng of ERISA and thus validly assign 15 those funds to her. The District Court granted summary judgment 16 in favor of Claire Nicholls on the ground that the divorce settlement ‐3‐ YALE‐NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL V. NICHOLLS 1 agreement constitutes a QDRO applicable to all four retirement 2 plans. 3 We find that the divorce settlement agreement does not 4 constitute a QDRO because the agreement fails to comply with the 5 requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). We conclude, however, 6 that the nunc pro tunc orders constitute valid QDROs that assign 7 funds to Claire Nicholls from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n for summary judgment. We hold that the 12 posthumous nunc pro tunc domestic relations orders constitute valid 13 \"qualified domestic relations orders\" that properly assign plan 14 funds to Claire Nicholls with respect to the three retirement and 15 pension plans specified therein, but that they have no such effect on 16 a fourth plan not so specified. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and 17 REVERSE in part the judgment of the District Court. 18 19 Judge WESLEY concurs in part and dissents in part, in a 20 separate opinion. 21 22 23 KENNETH VOTRE, Votre & Associates, P.C., East 24 Haven, CT"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Haven, CT, for Claire M. Nicholls. 27 ‐2‐ YALE‐NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL V. NICHOLLS 1 STRAUB, Circuit Judge: 2 Yale‐New Haven Hospital brought this interpleader action 3 pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 4 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to resolve competing claims by 5 Barbara Nicholls and Claire Nicholls to certain funds held in the 6 four retirement and pension plans of the late Harold Nicholls. 7 Barbara Nicholls, the surviving spouse of Mr. Nicholls, argues that 8 the funds are payable to her because she is the named beneficiary in 9 th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c498891c-62b7-4994-8972-5dc4b98f5e14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2805614-2805614","title":"CourtListener opinion 2805614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): participant and former spouse is not invalid simply by virtue of modifying an earlier QDRO's assignment of benefits between the same parties. Example 2 further illustrates the point, noting that where a valid QDRO assigns a portion of a participant's 401k benefits to a first spouse, a second QDRO may later issue assigning a different portion of the same 401k plan to a second spouse. See id. The second QDRO is not invalid merely because it constitutes a second QDRO regarding the same account but will be valid as long as it does not purport to assign to the second spouse that portion of the benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2806661 Docket: 13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2806661 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: count, with [Ms. Walker] being entitled to receive an amount equal to one-half of the money or assets held in the 401(k) account at the time of the parties' separation on June 2, 2007. Counsel for [Ms. Walker] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] necessary for the division of the [ex-husband's] 401(k). Ms. Walker contended that Mr. Hart failed to prepare the QDRO; therefore, she did not receive her equitable share from the 401(k). Ms. Walker contacted Mr. Hart on numerous occasions, but he did not return her telephone calls. She attempted to obtain information about the matter from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: esent her in a divorce case; one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making \"any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the parties' marriage. . . .\" Ms. Walker alleged that Mr. Hart failed to forward this order \"freez[ing]\" the account. The final order stated that Ms. Walker was entitled to an equitable distribution of the [ex-hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making \"any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the parties' marriage. . . .\" Ms. Walker alleged that Mr. Hart failed to forward this order \"freez[ing]\" the account. The final order stated that Ms. Walker was entitled to an equitable distribution of the [ex-husband's] 401(k) a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa761a59-f30b-41f8-8b90-3b5e10edc06a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2806661-2806661","title":"CourtListener opinion 2806661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): es are considered in this Opinion, and a brief summary of the underlying complaints is included herein. 2 1. No. 13-0748: Complaint of Greta J. Walker. Ms. Walker retained Mr. Hart to represent her in a divorce case; one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making \"any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2807039 Extracted case name: DHHR v. PERS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 14-0734 SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2807039 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d domestic relations order and not through the terms of the final order of divorce. 4. A family court has the necessary authority to posthumously enforce, revise, modify, or amend a domestic relations order for the purpose of establishing such order as a qualified domestic relations order. LOUGHRY, Justice: Through this consolidated appeal, petitioners, Patricia Jones (\"Patricia\" or \"Mrs. Jones\") and Judy Vannoy Akers (\"Mrs. Akers\"), challenge the decisions of the respondent, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (\"PERS\") d/b/a the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (the \"Board\"), in connection with reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tem with ten or more years of credited service, who is entitled to a deferred annuity under West Virginia Code § 5-10-21 (2013), shall, barring a previously-executed spousal waiver, immediately receive a preretirement death annuity. 3. The distribution of retirement benefits from the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System to a former spouse is accomplished through a qualified domestic relations order and not through the terms of the final order of divorce. 4. A family court has the necessary authority to posthumously enforce, revise, modify, or amend a domestic relations order for the purpose of establishing suc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt death benefits are authorized by West Virginia Code § 5-10-27 (2013). 3 See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (2012) (defining QDRO as domestic relations order that recognizes existence of alternate payee's right to all or portion of benefits payable under pension plan). 1 grant of disability retirement benefits was in error. With regard to the circuit court's ruling on the issue of Mrs. Jones' entitlement to retirement benefits, we affirm the trial court's decision that the Board was correct in rejecting the domestic relations orders submitted by her counsel.4 In the interest of enforcing the equitable distri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"587bb784-82f1-4f69-8946-ccc0e65bdec4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807039-2807039","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807039","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-0734 SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rts that the June QDRO was fully enforceable. Looking entirely beyond state public retirement systems, Mrs. Jones focuses on the options that are available under either private plans or plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to -1461 (2012). Essentially positing that the purpose of a QDRO is to fully effectuate the terms of a final order of divorce, Mrs. Jones maintains that the necessary statutory authority and case law permit what she sought to accomplish. Upon distillation of these arguments, we find that Mrs. Jones is describing the law as she w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2807878 Extracted reporter citation: 320 P.3d 291. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2807878 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: November 2012 separation and the late-May 2013 trial, John lived with his parents and Sarah continued to live rent-free in the marital home. In early April Sarah asked the superior court to postpone the May custody trial until September. Sarah anticipated a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for her share of John's retirement but believed it would take \"two to three months\" before she would \"actually have access to [those] funds.\" She asked for the continuance so that she could obtain the funds, retain counsel, and allow her new counsel to prepare for trial.1 John responded that Sarah had \"consented to the withdrawal of her attorney in M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: court denied Sarah's motion for a continuance without comment. In late April the superior court issued a divorce decree, noting that the parties had agreed to proceed to trial over custody. The court also issued Sarah a QDRO giving her a percentage of John's retirement benefit worth about $16,000. Also in late April John's stepfather, John L. D. (JL), sought grandparent visitation with John and Sarah's daughter. JL, who is retired, often watched John and Sarah's daughter when they were working. According to JL, \"[h]e has cared for [his granddaughter] on a frequent basis since her birth [and since] the parties have separated, bot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2012 separation and the late-May 2013 trial, John lived with his parents and Sarah continued to live rent-free in the marital home. In early April Sarah asked the superior court to postpone the May custody trial until September. Sarah anticipated a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for her share of John's retirement but believed it would take \"two to three months\" before she would \"actually have access to [those] funds.\" She asked for the continuance so that she could obtain the funds, retain counsel, and allow her new counsel to prepare for trial.1 John responded that Sarah had \"consented to the withdrawal of her attorney in M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86aa1e94-bd11-41e1-b015-1022c26e047c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2807878-2807878","title":"CourtListener opinion 2807878","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 291","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: interim attorney's fees to a divorcing spouse \"is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court\"5 and primarily takes into account \"the relative economic situations and earning powers of the parties.\"6 \"A party's economic situation includes the divorce property division, and a party who receives a property settlement 3 We review the denial of interim attorney's fees in a divorce proceeding for abuse of discretion. Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291, 296 (Alaska 2014); id. at 302 (stating superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional interim attorney's fees). A superior court has \"broad discr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2808372 Extracted reporter citation: 548 A.2d 611. Docket: 598 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2808372 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e the much larger component of the defined benefit part of the pension which will pay Husband considerably more than Wife. III) Whether the Court erred by failing to Order that the defined benefits portion of the parties' pensions should be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order upon retirement of the parties with an equitable division between the parties. IV) Whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the Husband's contributions to his pension, said contributions constituting an entirely separate asset than the monthly benefits Husband will receive as part of his defined pension plan. V) Whether in affirming"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n the statement. The absence of that calculation may be due to the fact that Wife was twenty-two years away from retirement when the statement issued. Nonetheless, the present value of Wife's defined benefit plan is not required if the distribution of the retirement benefits is to be deferred. A finding as to present value is necessary only if the retirement benefits are to be awarded to one spouse with an offset to the other. Gordon v. Gordon, 681 A.2d 732, 733 (Pa. 1996) (noting that in a deferred distribution, one identifies the marital share of the benefit but does not value it). The trial court erroneously treated t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nctive relief from the trial court. She represented that Husband submitted a letter of resignation dated March 5, 2014, to the Pennsylvania State Police. Based upon her belief that Husband could elect to receive a substantial lump sum distribution from his pension and fearing that the pension proceeds would be dissipated, Wife asked the trial court to enjoin disbursement of the pension to Husband until the exceptions had -3- J-A04011-15 been finally decided. On March 17, 2014, the trial court entered an order that neither party could sell, alienate, or transfer any asset of the marital estate until further or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb9f848-35f5-49e8-bd37-ea0ede60090c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808372-2808372","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"598 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"548 A.2d 611","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: larger component of the defined benefit part of the pension which will pay Husband considerably more than Wife. III) Whether the Court erred by failing to Order that the defined benefits portion of the parties' pensions should be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order upon retirement of the parties with an equitable division between the parties. IV) Whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the Husband's contributions to his pension, said contributions constituting an entirely separate asset than the monthly benefits Husband will receive as part of his defined pension plan. V) Whether in affirming"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2808603 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF Appeal from the Circuit Court LINDA ROBERTS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2808603 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: She requested that her TRS pension be awarded solely to her. ¶7 After hearing the evidence and testimony, the trial court announced its oral ruling on the petition for dissolution and motions filed by the parties. The court equally divided the parties' retirement accounts, which had a value of over $300,000. The court also ordered that petitioner's TRS pension be divided equally between the parties by a \"Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order\" (QILDRO). The court ordered that the parties pay their own debts and their own attorney's fees. The court denied respondent's request for maintenance and found no dissipa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ¶1 After 37 years of marriage, petitioner, a teacher, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against respondent, a disabled pharmacist. The trial court divided the property of the parties, and awarded each party a one-half interest in petitioner's pension from the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). Petitioner appeals, arguing that the trial court should have awarded her pension solely to her, or, alternatively, should have granted her maintenance in an amount equal to the payments respondent would receive from her pension. We reverse and remand, finding that the trial court erred in awarding half of p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lution and motions filed by the parties. The court equally divided the parties' retirement accounts, which had a value of over $300,000. The court also ordered that petitioner's TRS pension be divided equally between the parties by a \"Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order\" (QILDRO). The court ordered that the parties pay their own debts and their own attorney's fees. The court denied respondent's request for maintenance and found no dissipation of marital assets by either party. The court equally divided the cash assets between the parties. ¶8 After the court announced its ruling, petitioner asked the court to allow h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"177256f8-3093-4580-b7e1-b57dbfa8f2f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2808603-2808603","title":"CourtListener opinion 2808603","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: scretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id. ¶ 14 While most other states permit trial courts to consider a spouse's current or anticipated Social Security benefits in making an equitable distribution of marital assets, Illinois prohibits courts from giving any consideration to Social Security benefits when dividing marital property. In re Marriage of Crook, 211 Ill. 2d 437, 449-50 (2004). According to our supreme court, considering Social Security benefits in dividing marital property would conflict with federal law, which prohibits the transfer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2809390 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 899 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2809390 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s were denied. The ensuing equitable distribution order reduced Husband's payment to Wife from $22,500 to $11,033.34, directed that the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension be disbursed according to a qualified domestic relations order2 (\"QDRO\"), and awarded Wife $500 per month alimony for one year. Significantly, the trial court declined to assess against Husband the marital portion of Wife's student loan debt. Essentially, the court concluded that the certified record sustained the master's purported credibility determination that Husband \"was unaware that [Wife] had taken ________________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: te. The parties owned several assets including the marital residence, two rental properties, $10,030.66 proceeds from the then-recent sale of a third property, two automobiles, a motorcycle, a bass fishing boat, miscellaneous personal property, Husband's pension benefits, and savings and annuity accounts. The marital debts and liabilities included mortgages on two of the homes, the balance on an open line of credit, vehicle loans for one automobile and the motorcycle, credit card debt, and real estate taxes. ____________________________________________ 1 \"Where a spouse places separate property in joint names"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: at [Wife] had taken ____________________________________________ 2 In Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (Pa. 2007) (citation and internal quotations omitted), our Supreme Court explained, \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan. To be qualified, the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits.\" -5- J-A04006-15 excess student loans to spend at her discretion.\" Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/31/14, at 15. Husband filed a timely motion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e0b69e-4638-4b0c-a9cf-a5338da0ed89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2809390-2809390","title":"CourtListener opinion 2809390","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of the remaining exceptions were denied. The ensuing equitable distribution order reduced Husband's payment to Wife from $22,500 to $11,033.34, directed that the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension be disbursed according to a qualified domestic relations order2 (\"QDRO\"), and awarded Wife $500 per month alimony for one year. Significantly, the trial court declined to assess against Husband the marital portion of Wife's student loan debt. Essentially, the court concluded that the certified record sustained the master's purported credibility determination that Husband \"was unaware that [Wife] had taken ________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2810655 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Craig. Extracted reporter citation: 516 A.2d 363. Docket: 968 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2810655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (k) had a value of $104,718.73 as of March 31, 2012. [Appellant] had a [403(b)] through her employer which had a value on August 29, 2009 of $23,053.28 and a value of $53,335.15 as of March 31, 2012. . . . [Appellant is awarded] $50,000.00 by virtue of a QDRO from [Mr. Markle's] 401(k) at his place of employment. The QDRO shall be prepared by [Mr. Markle's] attorney as soon as possible after the entry of a decree. If [Appellant] chooses to retain this amount in a manner that will result in any income tax[] consequences[,] she will be solely responsible to pay said income tax or reimburse [Mr. Markle] for t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: il[ed] to take into consideration the nature and extent of the qualified assets awarded to [Appellant]\" – specifically, when he \"failed to consider\" the fact that Appellant could not liquidate the $50,000.00 that was assigned to Appellant from Mr. Markle's retirement account without Appellant incurring \"a great economic disadvantage;\" and, 6) awarded her only $4,500.00 in attorneys' fees. Appellant's Exceptions, 12/23/13, at 1-2. The trial court heard argument on Appellant's exceptions and, in an opinion and order dated April 4, 2014,2 the trial court denied Appellant's exceptions and accepted the Master's Report and Reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): erty in which [Appellant] is residing. 16. Marital Property There are several items of martial property[:] a. [Appellant's] NHS Human Services 403(b) Plan - $53,035.15 as of March 31, 2012. On August 29, 2008[,] it was $23,053.28. b. [Mr. Markle's] 401(k) with Smail Company[]. On August 1, 2008[, the 401(k) account was valued at $65,464.27 and on March 31, 2012[,] it was $104,718.73. c. 1997 Ford Expedition valued at $760.00. d. Ford Expedition 2008 driven by son with a retail value of $4,700.00 e. 2007 Kia Optima value of $6,575.00, owes approximately $4,500.00. f. Real estate known as 301 East"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3521b015-6bc1-4d5e-92bb-861cfbb6ee5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2810655-2810655","title":"CourtListener opinion 2810655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"968 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"516 A.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: his appeal. We deny Mr. Markle's motion to quash1 and affirm the decree of divorce. ____________________________________________ 1 According to Mr. Markle, we must quash the appeal because Appellant filed her notice of appeal from the pre-divorce order of equitable distribution and not from the final decree of divorce. Mr. Markle's Motion to Quash, 7/31/14, at ¶ 7. Mr. Markle's claim is frivolous, given that a decree of divorce was entered in this case and Appellant filed her notice of appeal within 30 days from the entry of the final divorce decree. See Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986) (en banc) (holding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2812301 Extracted reporter citation: 979 A.2d 892. Docket: 1088 MDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812301 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e trial court's ultimate determination that the ring was non- marital property based on the testimony that was presented.10 Lastly, we address Husband's complaint that the Master and trial court erred by imposing the equitable distribution award through a QDRO versus DRO.11 Husband's Brief at 21, 26, 27, 33. We note, however, that Husband ____________________________________________ 10 In doing so, we note our agreement with the trial court that it \"did not order any property be turned over to a third party.\" Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/14, at 9. 11 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has distinguished these t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: June 20, 2014, and an amended notice of appeal on July 9, 2014. Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Husband presents the following questions for review: [1] Whether the trial court failed to distribute Husband's military retirement plan consistent with Pennsylvania and Federal law when it ordered Husband to indemnify Wife and maintain a set monthly amount if her share was reduced either because he elected to take a disability waiver or for any other reason? [2] Whether the trial court erred in its method of valuing and distributing Husband's military retirement plan? [3] Whether th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: edural history of this case as follows: The parties were married on May 16, 1987 and separated on February 14, 2010. Husband served in the Navy for twenty- three years, eighteen of which were during the parties' marriage. Husband now receives a military pension and an additional $871 per month of Veterans Administration disability pay. Since Husband has been receiving disability he has generally worked ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 We note that a Decree in Divorce was entered on January 14, 2014. J-A08013-15 full time. The Master throu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71968322-76a2-4777-9061-ed33f5374c18","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812301-2812301","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1088 MDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"979 A.2d 892","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Opinion, 8/29/14, at 9. 11 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has distinguished these terms, as follows: Generally, a qualified domestic relations order, or \"QDRO,\" is defined as: a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan. To be \"qualified,\" the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits. (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 22 - J-A08013-15 did not raise this issue in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a430ff70-8c28-4a4c-bd5f-3e853dcb56e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812687","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2812687 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812687 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a430ff70-8c28-4a4c-bd5f-3e853dcb56e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812687","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a430ff70-8c28-4a4c-bd5f-3e853dcb56e2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812687-2812687","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812687","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ; the other was in 1999, for willful infliction of corporeal injury on his spouse. Tapp was sentenced to a third strike term of 25 years to life in state prison for the assault conviction, with a concurrent sentence of one year in county jail for disobeying a domestic relations order. Tapp appealed, and this court reversed the trial court's true finding that his section 246.3 conviction was for a serious or violent felony, because there was not substantial evidence that Tapp personally used a gun in the commission of his negligent discharge offense. We vacated Tapp's sentence, and remanded for a retrial if the prosecutor elected to ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2812807 Extracted case name: DDS v. CAROLE MICHELLE LUNN. Extracted reporter citation: 733 S.W.2d 102. Docket: of days Husband spent with the children. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812807 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tively filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court entered a subsequent order, allowing Husband to satisfy a portion of his obligations owed to Wife by transferring funds from his retirement account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Husband was directed to reimburse Wife for any tax liability she incurred as a result of such transfer. The court also ordered Husband to pay $5,000 of Wife‟s expert witness fees. The court denied Wife‟s request to base Husband‟s child support obligation on the actual co-parenting time he was currently spending with the children. The trial court referr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties‟ 2011 federal income tax return. Both parties respectively filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court entered a subsequent order, allowing Husband to satisfy a portion of his obligations owed to Wife by transferring funds from his retirement account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Husband was directed to reimburse Wife for any tax liability she incurred as a result of such transfer. The court also ordered Husband to pay $5,000 of Wife‟s expert witness fees. The court denied Wife‟s request to base Husband‟s child support obligation on the actual co-parenting time he was currently spen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: te, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (2) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party‟s earnings capacity to a reasonable level; (3) The duration of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aabc111e-733d-4aa3-82d3-097012c8b397","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2812807-2812807","title":"CourtListener opinion 2812807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days Husband spent with the children. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"733 S.W.2d 102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): merit. VIII. Wife‟s Federal Tax Liability Husband asserts that the trial court erred in assessing Wife‟s additional federal tax liability of $16,022 to Husband. The court found that the liability resulted from Husband‟s decision to transfer funds from his 401(k) in order to satisfy part of his obligations from the division of the marital estate. Following the trial court‟s distribution of the marital estate, Husband owed Wife certain monetary obligations, including an indebtedness of $92,121 owed to Wife for her share of the equity in the parties‟ 23 commercial real property. Husband sought to transfer this amoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2813071 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of FRANKIE and GLORIA MEEK. FRANKIE MEEK. Extracted reporter citation: 234 Cal.App.3d 1413. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2813071 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ment agreement. The dissolution judgment included a spousal support order stating that Frankie was required to pay Gloria $1,400 in monthly spousal support. The spousal support order stated: \"Of the $1,400.00 payable to [Gloria], [Gloria] shall prepare her Qualified Domestic Relations Order for her half of the community property share of [Frankie's] Air Force Military Retirement.\" The support order further states that, when Gloria began receiving her monthly retirement amount directly from the air force, Frankie was required \"to pay in spousal support to [Gloria], the difference between the amount [Gloria] receives from the military up to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rankie filed a marital dissolution petition. The parties executed a marital settlement agreement, which was filed in July 2001. In August 2001, the parties stipulated and the trial court entered an order regarding Frankie's United States Air Force military retirement benefits (Air Force benefits). The Air Force benefits judgment stated Gloria had a 49 percent community property interest in Frankie's Air Force benefits, based on the date of the parties' marriage in 1966 and the date of Frankie's retirement from the military in July 1985. Frankie began employment with the federal government in February 1986, and retired in Ja"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: al support concurrent with Gloria's request for support arrears, since Frankie was arguing he was not required to pay arrears or out-of-pocket support because, after Frankie retired, Gloria's support award was satisfied by receipt of her share of increased pension benefits. The parties did not object to continuing the hearing from 17 October 30, 2013, to November 21, 2013, for the purpose of hearing both Gloria's request for arrears and Frankie's oral request for support modification. We conclude there was substantial evidence that the parties received notice of the spousal support modification hearing, and th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3d13c223-7243-42d5-9f03-47a2156fda69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813071-2813071","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813071","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 Cal.App.3d 1413","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ment. The dissolution judgment included a spousal support order stating that Frankie was required to pay Gloria $1,400 in monthly spousal support. The spousal support order stated: \"Of the $1,400.00 payable to [Gloria], [Gloria] shall prepare her Qualified Domestic Relations Order for her half of the community property share of [Frankie's] Air Force Military Retirement.\" The support order further states that, when Gloria began receiving her monthly retirement amount directly from the air force, Frankie was required \"to pay in spousal support to [Gloria], the difference between the amount [Gloria] receives from the military up to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e71699d-8a1a-46d6-9ddf-dc641e218aad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.Ct. 2228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2813224 Extracted case name: LLC v. CSX. Extracted reporter citation: 134 S.Ct. 2228. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2813224 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e71699d-8a1a-46d6-9ddf-dc641e218aad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.Ct. 2228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e71699d-8a1a-46d6-9ddf-dc641e218aad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.Ct. 2228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation\" and is \"consistent with the congressional design to enact two different statutes, each with its own mechanisms to enhance\" railroad safety. (POM Wonderful, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 2239.) 19. Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Employee Retirement Income Security Act required state court to make independent evaluation].)10 BNSF contends the broad, unlimited language of FRSA's preemption provision is properly read to support both preemption of covered state law claims and preclusion of FELA negligence claims. BNSF asserts this conclusion is strengthened by Congress's 2007 de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e71699d-8a1a-46d6-9ddf-dc641e218aad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2813224-2813224","title":"CourtListener opinion 2813224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.Ct. 2228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation\" and is \"consistent with the congressional design to enact two different statutes, each with its own mechanisms to enhance\" railroad safety. (POM Wonderful, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 2239.) 19. Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Employee Retirement Income Security Act required state court to make independent evaluation].)10 BNSF contends the broad, unlimited language of FRSA's preemption provision is properly read to support both preemption of covered state law claims and preclusion of FELA negligence claims. BNSF asserts this conclusion is strengthened by Congress's 2007 de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2816437 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816437 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: titled to a fractional interest in those benefits. ¶2 David appeals, arguing, inter alia, the trial court erred in ruling Nancy was entitled to a portion of his disability benefits where the original dissolution judgment only awarded Nancy a portion of his retirement benefits. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On May 22, 1971, David and Nancy were married. On August 3, 1972, David began working for the City of Decatur fire department. ¶5 On April 16, 1999, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. At the time of the judgment, the primary marital asset was David's pension. The judgment provided, in pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: riage between Nancy and her former spouse, respondent, David W. Benson, which required David to pay a portion of his disability benefits to her. Following an April 2014 hearing, the court found David's disability benefits were in the nature of a disability pension and, as a result, Nancy was entitled to a fractional interest in those benefits. ¶2 David appeals, arguing, inter alia, the trial court erred in ruling Nancy was entitled to a portion of his disability benefits where the original dissolution judgment only awarded Nancy a portion of his retirement benefits. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On May 22, 1971,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e provides a QILDRO is \"an Illinois court order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a member's accrued benefits in a retirement system.\" A QILDRO requires a retirement system to divert to an alternate payee all or part of a benefit the system would otherwise have to pay to the member. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(2) (West 2012). A QILDRO may divert the payment of a retirement benefit, a refund, or a death benefit. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2012). However, as stated, it may not divert the payment of a disability benefit. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(4) (West 2012). ¶ 37 Nanc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"00649c02-49e2-4a09-b5a4-7a22acb9c372","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816437-2816437","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816437","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: provided, in pertinent part, the following: \"[Nancy] is granted a one-half interest in [David's] retirement plan through the Decatur Fire Department and his ICMA retirement account. Transfer of said funds shall be accomplished through qualified [Illinois] domestic relations orders.\" ¶6 David continued to work as a firefighter until 2008, when he was injured during a call. David was carrying equipment back to the fire truck in the rain when his foot slipped. As he fell, his head and shoulder were driven into the ground, injuring his lower back. ¶7 On February 27, 2008, David began receiving disability benefits. At the time, David w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2816541 Extracted case name: FROEHLICH v. FROEHLICH. NAHMIAS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fer of half of a 401 (k) retirement account, where \"the divorce decree specified both how Wife's interest in the 401 (k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO.\" 286 Ga. at 236. We held that \"transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation\" was an impermissible modification. Id. Unlike Killingsworth, the contempt order in this case does not transmute any property or compel Husband to relinquish or sell any asset awarded to him by the divorce decree. The Marriott points at issue are Wife's property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: v. Gooch, Case No. S15A0202, decided June 1, 2015, slip op. at 4 (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him \"to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order\"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewelry that the parties had a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ontemptuous conduct.\" Smith, 293 Ga. at 565. Husband's reliance on Killingsworth is misplaced. In that case, we held that the trial court impermissibly modified the divorce decree by ordering a cash payment to the wife in lieu of the transfer of half of a 401 (k) retirement account, where \"the divorce decree specified both how Wife's interest in the 401 (k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO.\" 286 Ga. at 236. We held that \"transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation\" was an impermissible mod"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e71ff8-c58c-4b29-bac7-ffd303e6cf1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816541-2816541","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: 6) (2013). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, Case No. S15A0202, decided June 1, 2015, slip op. at 4 (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him \"to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order\"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2816544 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 26 N.E.3d 1045. Docket: 45A03-1502-DR-46 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816544 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: disagreed about the value of personal property, which Husband valued as being worth $30,480.00 more than Wife. However, Husband does not appeal the trial court's determination regarding the personal property. 3 Because Husband's PERF cannot be divided via Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Wife had to receive additional marital assets that would amount to the value of 45% of Husband's PERF. Tr. at 35. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 4 of 20 checking accounts, and that each party would keep his or her own vehicle. Id. at 58, 64. [9] The parties' proposed division differed in a coup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: le it is true Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 15 of 20 that Husband was awarded his pre-tax PERF account, Wife was awarded her pre-tax PERF account, as well as a portion of one of Husband's pre-tax retirement accounts. The accounts awarded to Wife totaled about $250,000.00. [28] In its Decree of Dissolution, the trial court followed the parties' mediated agreement. It was the parties' joint determination that Husband's PERF account, which Wife's expert valued at $466,000.00, would be valued for purposes of the marital estate at about $10,000.00 less, or $455,871."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of some savings bonds, excluded other savings bonds from the marital estate, and awarded Wife the majority of the liquid, post-tax assets; and II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Husband's request for a post-division credit on his pension value. [2] We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife were married on May 23, 1992, and Wife filed for dissolution of marriage on June 6, 2014. During their twenty-two-year marriage, the couple did not have any children. [4] At the time Wife filed for dissolution, she earned $27,450.00 per year in wages. Husband earned $30,295.00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"299ddc23-0326-48e5-8363-069c9b3b218a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2816544-2816544","title":"CourtListener opinion 2816544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"45A03-1502-DR-46 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.E.3d 1045","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: about the value of personal property, which Husband valued as being worth $30,480.00 more than Wife. However, Husband does not appeal the trial court's determination regarding the personal property. 3 Because Husband's PERF cannot be divided via Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Wife had to receive additional marital assets that would amount to the value of 45% of Husband's PERF. Tr. at 35. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 4 of 20 checking accounts, and that each party would keep his or her own vehicle. Id. at 58, 64. [9] The parties' proposed division differed in a coup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53895be6-aeb9-4bf3-9cd1-7b7d45d508bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594","title":"CourtListener opinion 2817594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2817594 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 746. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2817594 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53895be6-aeb9-4bf3-9cd1-7b7d45d508bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594","title":"CourtListener opinion 2817594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53895be6-aeb9-4bf3-9cd1-7b7d45d508bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594","title":"CourtListener opinion 2817594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ot give its clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53895be6-aeb9-4bf3-9cd1-7b7d45d508bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594","title":"CourtListener opinion 2817594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: doff retired in 1996 as an E-7 with twenty years of service. Orndoff and Italian remarried but divorced again in March 2005 and a new divorce decree was entered. At that time, the trial court \"confirmed\" Italian's entitlement to 22.5% of Orndoff's military retirement benefits as set forth on page 11 of the 1988 divorce decree and ordered Orndoff to \"resume payments starting March 2005.\" In December 2005, a hearing took place on Italian's motion to enforce payment of her share of Orndoff's military retirement benefits. The trial court ordered Orndoff to pay Italian the monthly amount of $111.71 in addition to $100 until the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53895be6-aeb9-4bf3-9cd1-7b7d45d508bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2817594-2817594","title":"CourtListener opinion 2817594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2818524 Extracted case name: R.R.F. v. L.L.F. Extracted reporter citation: 920 N.E.2d 688. Docket: 25A05-1407-DR-344 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2818524 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dered in the division of the marital estate. Austin is primarily responsible for these loans and is current in the loan obligations. Therefore, the loans have not been considered. The Court is directing that [Husband's] pension would be divided by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and therefore the value is not included in the equalization calculation. (4) MARITAL RESIDENCE: That [Husband] shall have sole and exclusive ownership of the marital residence … and shall be responsible for and shall hold [Wife] harmless for all obligations associated with the marital residence. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decisi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: in installments, that is just and proper; (3) ordering the sale of the property under such conditions as the court prescribes and dividing the proceeds of the sale; or (4) ordering the distribution of benefits described in IC 31-9-2- 98(b)(2) [pension or retirement benefits] or IC 31-9-2-98(b)(3) [disposable retired or retainer pay] that are payable after the dissolution of marriage, by setting aside to either of the parties a percentage of those payments either by assignment or in kind at the time of receipt. And Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-5 provides, The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tin's student loans should be considered in the division of the marital estate. Austin is primarily responsible for these loans and is current in the loan obligations. Therefore, the loans have not been considered. The Court is directing that [Husband's] pension would be divided by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and therefore the value is not included in the equalization calculation. (4) MARITAL RESIDENCE: That [Husband] shall have sole and exclusive ownership of the marital residence … and shall be responsible for and shall hold [Wife] harmless for all obligations associated with the marit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4a6455a-3f32-4ed8-9337-5dd49d9aa930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2818524-2818524","title":"CourtListener opinion 2818524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25A05-1407-DR-344 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"920 N.E.2d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ipates that the refinancing will be needed for the equalization payment and the Court anticipates that will all be accomplished within sixty (60) days of today's date. (5) RETIREMENT/BENEFIT: That [Wife] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Wife's] 401(k) with the value of $10,902.27. That [Husband] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Husband's] General Motor[s] Profit Sharing Plan with the value of $2,629.81. General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan [Wife] shall be awarded 50% of [Husband's] vested General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan (\"the Plan\") as of September"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2820566 Extracted reporter citation: 464 A.2d 1359. Docket: 1460 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2820566 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n order on August 6, 2014, concluding that Husband and his current spouse were legally married as a result of the divorce decree and subsequent marriage. The trial court enjoined the pension fund from paying any pension benefits to Husband pending a final qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Wife moved for reconsideration, arguing that her survivor's benefits from Husband's retirement could be affected by his remarriage. After the trial court denied reconsideration, Wife filed a timely notice of appeal of the August 6 order. Wife's stated reason for opposing Husband's motion for reconsideration of the July 10 order was that her r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. See id. Subsequent to the entry of the divorce decree, Husband remarried in Florida on October 31, 2013. In May 2014, Husband's employer terminated his employment and he applied for retirement benefits through his union in June 2014. In his application for retirement benefits, Husband named his current spouse as the beneficiary. Wife then petitioned the trial court for an order enjoining the union's pension fund from recognizing the current spouse, instead identifying Wife as his current spouse, and precluding paying out pension benefits to Husband."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: error. The previous panel of this Court identified eight economic issues briefed and argued by Wife and addressed each issue individually. In its holding, the Superior Court reversed the trial court with regard to Wife's first, second, and fifth issues (pension, continuance, and alimony respectively); vacated as to her third, fourth, and sixth issues (attorney's fees, credit against equitable distribution, and pension respectively); remanded as to issue eight (restricting evidence); and found no merit in her issue seven (loss of value of marital residence). See Graziani, No. 1980 -2- J-A13003-15 WDA 2012 a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78594824-9739-479a-8e7b-1bbb658a62a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820566-2820566","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1460 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 A.2d 1359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: August 6, 2014, concluding that Husband and his current spouse were legally married as a result of the divorce decree and subsequent marriage. The trial court enjoined the pension fund from paying any pension benefits to Husband pending a final qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Wife moved for reconsideration, arguing that her survivor's benefits from Husband's retirement could be affected by his remarriage. After the trial court denied reconsideration, Wife filed a timely notice of appeal of the August 6 order. Wife's stated reason for opposing Husband's motion for reconsideration of the July 10 order was that her r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2820755 Extracted reporter citation: 854 N.E.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2820755 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: job of twenty-three years. The trial court held a hearing on February 11, 2014 regarding the division of the marital estate. Among other assets, Husband had two pensions which Wife requested be split by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). In its June 26, 2014 decree of dissolution and property division, the trial court ordered the marital assets separated as follows: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 10 2. The Petitioner/Wife shall receive and own as her property the following property at the following values: Half of Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e large majority of the total marital estate. The trial court also ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment to Wife in order that the total assets would be split evenly by the parties. The trial court instructed Husband to liquidate certain retirement accounts, refinance the marital home, or obtain a loan to satisfy the cash payment to Wife. The trial court further instructed that if such options were insufficient, Husband would be required to sell the marital home. On appeal, Husband argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider tax consequences and costs of selling the home when valuating as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: parated as follows: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 10 2. The Petitioner/Wife shall receive and own as her property the following property at the following values: Half of Husband's Millwright Pension that accrued QDRO during marriage Half of Husband's ALCOA Defined Benefit QDRO (Pension) that accrued during marriage 2002 Pontiac Grand Am $1,200 2006 Chevy Aveo $8,000 Ed Jones joint [account] $23,096 Wife's Freedom [account] $0.32 Wife's American Funds IRA $57,871.41 Wife's SMMC 401(a) $1,024.56 Wife's SMMC 403(a) $2,038.53 Personal Property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb7eb842-186d-4f08-9578-98844231decf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2820755-2820755","title":"CourtListener opinion 2820755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"854 N.E.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): r husband, Appellant-Respondent Thomas Thompson (\"Husband\"). In separating the marital assets, the trial court awarded Husband Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 1 of 10 the marital home and Husband's 401(k) which accounted for the large majority of the total marital estate. The trial court also ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment to Wife in order that the total assets would be split evenly by the parties. The trial court instructed Husband to liquidate certain retirement accounts, refinance the marital home, or obtain a loan to satisfy"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2821447 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2821447 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: that SHIRLEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order.\" ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s' youngest child, who was 16 when Shirley and Bruce divorced. The marital settlement agreement that both parties signed contained the following language in article VIII. \"BRUCE shall have the sole right, title and interest in his pension and individual retirement plans, including but not limited to past, present and future contributions, interest and principal, whether contributed by BRUCE or his employer or both and whether unvested, partially vested, or fully vested, free and clear of any and all claims of SHIRLEY. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be entered which will provide SHIRLEY with $621.00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ____________________________ OPINION ¶1 Respondent Shirley Frank, n/k/a Shirley Pearson, filed a motion to enforce the terms in a 1998 marital settlement agreement she entered into with her former husband, petitioner Bruce Frank. Shirley sought various pension benefits she claims were distributed to her per the parties' marital settlement agreement but which she did not receive when Bruce retired. The trial court denied Shirley's petition for enforcement of judgment and her motion to reconsider. She appealed. We affirm. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Petitioner Bruce Frank and respondent Shirley Frank were married in April 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"283e3147-1235-431d-8d0e-0f6eb413fc60","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2821447-2821447","title":"CourtListener opinion 2821447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: LEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order.\" ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a5054ca-324d-4fb5-9dea-f52e1a3e0b9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242","title":"CourtListener opinion 2822242","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 A.3d 372","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2822242 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 50 A.3d 372. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2822242 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a5054ca-324d-4fb5-9dea-f52e1a3e0b9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242","title":"CourtListener opinion 2822242","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 A.3d 372","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a5054ca-324d-4fb5-9dea-f52e1a3e0b9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242","title":"CourtListener opinion 2822242","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 A.3d 372","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ties exchanged exten- sive discovery and participated [with] a special mas- ter pretrial. ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's borough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 The QDRO was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plain- tiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a5054ca-324d-4fb5-9dea-f52e1a3e0b9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242","title":"CourtListener opinion 2822242","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 A.3d 372","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Sousa, and the defendant, Donna M. Sousa. The defen- dant now appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying two motions to vacate a prior judgment that modified, by stipulation, a portion of the judgment of dissolution that ordered that the plaintiff's pension ben- efits be divided equally between the parties. She claims that the court erred by denying her first motion to vacate because it erroneously concluded that she did not meet her burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff fraudulently failed to disclose the accu- rate value of his employee pension plan in his financial affidavit. I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a5054ca-324d-4fb5-9dea-f52e1a3e0b9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2822242-2822242","title":"CourtListener opinion 2822242","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 A.3d 372","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nged exten- sive discovery and participated [with] a special mas- ter pretrial. ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's borough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 The QDRO was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plain- tiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2824168 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN ROSS HAECKER AND KAREN T. BLOMME Upon the Petition of STEVEN ROSS HAECKER. Extracted reporter citation: 726 N.W.2d 359. Docket: 13-1876. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2824168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 and $174,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial ruling, the court concluded Blomme should be credited for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t their 2013 appraised values of $104,590 and $174,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mme's value. Because the court's valuation was within the range of evidence, we conclude the district court's valuation was equitable. See id. The district court elected to offset the entire $7200 value of the Toyota against the appreciation of Haecker's pension \"from their marriage in 2000 to his retirement in 2003.\" In his reply brief, Haecker suggests this disposition was inequitable. On our de novo review, we agree. \"All property of the marriage that exists at the time of the divorce . . . is divisible property.\" Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 247. The record contains scant if any evidence of the appreciation of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3081d77d-82fe-48b6-b257-686b423daa49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824168-2824168","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-1876","extracted_reporter_citation":"726 N.W.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial ruling, the court concluded Blomme should be credited for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2824935 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seachrist. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2824935 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1137 [Jensen].\" (Capitalization omitted.) In 2013, wife filed a petition requesting distribution from the domestic relations order under In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418 [Gillmore]. She claimed entitlement to her share of retirement benefits although husband, though eligible for retirement, was still employed by the County of Orange and had indicated he did not intend to retire for some time. In an \"order after hearing\" dated July 14, 2014, the trial court granted the petition. On May 16, 2014, husband filed a notice of appeal from two minute orders that preceded the \"order after hearing.\" But"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ) 2 Cal.App.4th 1606 holds \"that unless a marital settlement agreement . . . contains an express unequivocal waiver, upon the employee spouse's eligibility to retire, the nonemployee spouse retains the right to receive his or her share of a community property pension.\" (Id. at 1608.) Husband also contends the court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order. His argument arises from the confusion created by California's disparate use of the phrase \"lack of jurisdiction.\" The simple answer is \"the trial court retains jurisdiction to oversee and enforce the execution of the judgment . . . .\" (Rivero v. Lake County Bd. of Sup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ment System, part of the benefits he accrued in this system was community property. The parties stipulated to a domestic relations order, approved by the court, dividing their respective interests in the retirement system. The order provides: \"Payments to the alternate payee [wife] shall be available, on application of the alternate payee to the plan administrator, on the same basis and at the same times as such benefits are actually paid to participant [husband] in accordance with In re Marriage of Jensen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1137 [Jensen].\" (Capitalization omitted.) In 2013, wife filed a petition requesting distribution fro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5251230-f86d-4a53-8140-cc5a18cdb696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2824935-2824935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2824935","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: No appearance for Respondent Lynn L. Bell. The Seachrists divorced in 1995. Because husband was a participant in the Orange County Employees Retirement System, part of the benefits he accrued in this system was community property. The parties stipulated to a domestic relations order, approved by the court, dividing their respective interests in the retirement system. The order provides: \"Payments to the alternate payee [wife] shall be available, on application of the alternate payee to the plan administrator, on the same basis and at the same times as such benefits are actually paid to participant [husband] in accordance with In re Mar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2825833 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2825833 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: trial on August 28, 2013, the trial court signed a final divorce decree ending Brenda's marriage to appellee Michael D. Price and ordering a division of the estate of the parties on December 18, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter the qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) regarding Brenda's and Michael's employee-benefit plans, which the trial court granted on January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it \"contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it \"contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit Retirement Plan to operate as a defined contribution plan.\" On June 6, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter a modified QDRO, which was set for a July 2, 2014 hearing. See id. § 9.104 (West 2006). On June 14, 2014, Michael filed objections to Brenda's proposed QDRO and a motion for sanctions, arguing that Brenda's motion for a modified QDRO was brought in bad faith b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: August 28, 2013, the trial court signed a final divorce decree ending Brenda's marriage to appellee Michael D. Price and ordering a division of the estate of the parties on December 18, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter the qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) regarding Brenda's and Michael's employee-benefit plans, which the trial court granted on January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it \"contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9476c5ae-cdbf-4cb2-9adf-d8ce43434ac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2825833-2825833","title":"CourtListener opinion 2825833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: thority to award sanctions. 5 Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (op. on reh'g). In divorce actions, however, a trial court has continuing, yet limited, postjudgment jurisdiction to enforce and clarify the decree's property division and to render an enforceable QDRO after its plenary power expires. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.006 (West Supp. 2014), §§ 9.008, 9.101 (West 2006); Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106, 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g). The trial court signed its first QDRO order on January 29, 2014; thus, its jurisdiction over that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2826474 Extracted reporter citation: 340 P.3d 1242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2826474 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The court awarded Dodson-Carr $500/month in maintenance and $724/month in child support. Additionally, the court stated that \"It is . . . reasonable and equitable that [Carr's] retirement be divided 50% to [Dodson-Carr] and 50% 2 to [Carr] by means of a [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO.\" Carr promptly sought to have the judgment amended but his motion was deemed denied when the District Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rict Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his monthly retirement benefit to her. On May 9, 2012, the Court issued the QDRO in which it ordered: [Carr] (\"Member\") and [Dodson-Carr] (\"Nonmember Spouse\") have acquired a community interest in the Member's monthly retirement benefits attributable to periods of service in the System from the Date of Marriage up to the . . . Date of Retirement . . . . The [c]ourt allocates and aw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ad a daughter in 2000. Dodson-Carr, currently 56 years old, is a disabled retired detention officer. Carr, currently 63, is a retired California police officer who served 27 years on the force before retiring in May 2004. During his employment, he earned a pension administered through California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and subject to California Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL). The couple relocated to Montana in 2004 and separated on December 24, 2008. Carr sought dissolution of the marriage in July 2010. ¶4 The District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b37949a5-5aeb-4c3d-97da-9f3b3447ae85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2826474-2826474","title":"CourtListener opinion 2826474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"340 P.3d 1242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: awarded Dodson-Carr $500/month in maintenance and $724/month in child support. Additionally, the court stated that \"It is . . . reasonable and equitable that [Carr's] retirement be divided 50% to [Dodson-Carr] and 50% 2 to [Carr] by means of a [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO.\" Carr promptly sought to have the judgment amended but his motion was deemed denied when the District Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2827077 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2012-29 Joint Stipulation. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2827077 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l oppression, one of the crimes to which Mr. Cioppa pleaded guilty, is a \"crime related to public office or public employment\" under PEPFA. Section 2 of PEPFA, 43 P.S. § 1312. Article V, Section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits payment of any retirement benefits to any judge, including a magisterial district judge, who under Article V, Section 18 \"is suspended, removed or barred from holding judicial office for conviction of a felony or misconduct in office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office 4 The hearing officer had ruled that Mr. Cioppa was entitled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rial District Judge, and Maureen Cioppa (Mrs. Cioppa), his wife, appealing an order of the State Employees' Retirement Board (Board) denying their appeals of two decisions of the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) forfeiting Mr. Cioppa's entire accrued pension benefits and Mrs. Cioppa's rights under his pension. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Mr. Cioppa was a member of SERS from April 13, 1973 until July 31, 1979 as an employee of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Revenue. Board Opinion at 8; Hearing Officer Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶1-3; Docket No. 2012-29 Joint Stipulation ¶¶1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ghts under her husband's pension. A spouse has a marital property interest in a pension that is recognized in equitable distribution in the event of a divorce, and the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa. C.S. §§ 5101- 5956, provides for alternate payees pursuant to domestic relations orders. Glancey v. State Employes' Ret. Bd., 610 A.2d 15, 25 (Pa. 1992); Titler v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 768 A.2d 899, 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953(a)(3); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953.1. That, however, does not give a spouse of a SERS member any enforceable interest in the member's pension or right to receive benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1266ac-957d-4cee-8be8-962872c8c698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2827077-2827077","title":"CourtListener opinion 2827077","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-29 Joint Stipulation","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion. A spouse has a marital property interest in a pension that is recognized in equitable distribution in the event of a divorce, and the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa. C.S. §§ 5101- 5956, provides for alternate payees pursuant to domestic relations orders. Glancey v. State Employes' Ret. Bd., 610 A.2d 15, 25 (Pa. 1992); Titler v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 768 A.2d 899, 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953(a)(3); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953.1. That, however, does not give a spouse of a SERS member any enforceable interest in the member's pension or right to receive benefits prior to a divorce. Titler, 768 A.2d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac9262be-81c1-444f-94a7-203077ddcd07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2828339 Extracted case name: MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHIRER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828339 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac9262be-81c1-444f-94a7-203077ddcd07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac9262be-81c1-444f-94a7-203077ddcd07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ith professional misconduct in one client matter. Relator alleged that Shirer was retained by a client to obtain the dissolution of her marriage. Relator claimed that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Shirer failed to file an agreed qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") with the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commiss"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac9262be-81c1-444f-94a7-203077ddcd07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: h the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2 {¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Shirer stipulates to the facts alleged in relator's complaint and agrees that his conduct violated DR 6- 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac9262be-81c1-444f-94a7-203077ddcd07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828339-2828339","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828339","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: etained by a client to obtain the dissolution of her marriage. Relator claimed that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Shirer failed to file an agreed qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\") with the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties' consent-to-d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2828509 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA L. SULLINS AND RAYMOND W. SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA L. SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-1153. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828509 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. A former husband appeals the district court's remand decision concerning the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Ray Sullins, West Des Moines, appellant pro se. David J. Hellstern of Sullivan & Ward, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: document. In November 2013, Donna's attorney asked the district court to set the remand matter for hearing. 4 The district court held a hearing on February 11 and March 9, 2014. At the hearing, Donna offered an exhibit showing the IPERS estimate of her retirement benefits using six different options. Options four and six required designation of a contingent annuitant. Donna lobbied for option three which, according to the IPERS estimate, provided a lifetime monthly benefit of approximately $4193.05. That option did not provide a payment after Donna's death. Ray asked the court to specify in the QDRO that Donna choose op"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to provide Ray Sullins with a share of the pension assets in Donna Sullins's account with the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS). In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255–56 (Iowa 2006). The QDRO was to direct IPERS to pay benefits to Ray under the Benson1 formula, specifically 50% of the gross monthly or lump-sum benefit payable at the date of distribution to Donna, multiplied by t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3451fde3-7ff4-4c8b-bdef-b80780c25705","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828509-2828509","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1153","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. A former husband appeals the district court's remand decision concerning the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Ray Sullins, West Des Moines, appellant pro se. David J. Hellstern of Sullivan & Ward, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2828641 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shen. Docket: 1-13-0733. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828641 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd $19,750 to Feng's attorney. The remaining funds were to be placed in escrow with Feng's attorney to pay taxes on the early withdrawal from the 401(k). ¶ 22 Pursuant to the court's October 12, 2011 order, Janet and Feng entered into a separate stipulated qualified domestic relations order in accordance with the terms of the court's October 12, 2011 order. This order was entered on November 10, 2011 and stipulated only to the release of the funds in the Trader Joe's 401(k). Both Janet and Feng, as well as both of their attorneys, signed this stipulated qualified domestic relations order. ¶ 23 On January 12, 2012, after an extensive hearing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 10(c) (West 2012)), and including the court's provision for review of the maintenance award if the wife attains an income of at least $45,000. ¶3 Second, the circuit court erred when it entered an order on October 12, 2011 that ordered the husband's 401(k) retirement account liquidated to, in part, satisfy interim attorney fees in contravention of In re Marriage of Radzik, 2011 IL App (2d) 100374, where the court held that retirement accounts are exempt under section 12-1006 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006 (West 2010)). We therefore must reverse this order, entered on October 12, 2011. As the wife sought"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): LCS 5/510(c) (West 2012)), and including the court's provision for review of the maintenance award if the wife attains an income of at least $45,000. ¶3 Second, the circuit court erred when it entered an order on October 12, 2011 that ordered the husband's 401(k) retirement account liquidated to, in part, satisfy interim attorney fees in contravention of In re Marriage of Radzik, 2011 IL App (2d) 100374, where the court held that retirement accounts are exempt under section 12-1006 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006 (West 2010)). We therefore must reverse this order, entered on October 12, 2011."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a9c1dce-417c-4eec-84d3-5ad519f1ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828641-2828641","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-13-0733","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to Feng's attorney. The remaining funds were to be placed in escrow with Feng's attorney to pay taxes on the early withdrawal from the 401(k). ¶ 22 Pursuant to the court's October 12, 2011 order, Janet and Feng entered into a separate stipulated qualified domestic relations order in accordance with the terms of the court's October 12, 2011 order. This order was entered on November 10, 2011 and stipulated only to the release of the funds in the Trader Joe's 401(k). Both Janet and Feng, as well as both of their attorneys, signed this stipulated qualified domestic relations order. ¶ 23 On January 12, 2012, after an extensive hearing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2828906 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Wood Throughout most of the marriage. Extracted reporter citation: 928 P.2d 1108. Docket: Zale Wood next contends that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828906 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: house between the parties, awarded Diane $5,630 for back maintenance, and granted Diane $4,094 in future monthly maintenance. The proposed decree directed that future maintenance be reduced proportionate to the amount of payment Diane monthly receives from qualified domestic relations orders on Zale's pensions. On September 3,2013, Zale Wood's attorney withdrew. On September 18,2013, the day of the second hearing for entry of the final decree, Zale moved to continue the hearing because he had yet to replace his lawyer. The trial court denied the motion to continue. Zale argued, without counsel, the merits of the entry of the findings and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: il their separation. The couple begat and nurtured two now adult children. No. 32022-7-111 In re the Marriage of Wood Throughout most of the marriage, Zale worked in construction as a member of the Teamsters Union. He retired and began drawing a Teamsters pension in 2002, but still continued to work on occasion. The Teamsters pension was a principal retirement asset. Diane worked as a homemaker throughout the marriage. In 2009, Diane and Zale Wood separated. PROCEDURE On April 7, 2009, Diane Wood filed a petition for legal separation. Diane later converted the separation petition to a divorce petition. In he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: een the parties, awarded Diane $5,630 for back maintenance, and granted Diane $4,094 in future monthly maintenance. The proposed decree directed that future maintenance be reduced proportionate to the amount of payment Diane monthly receives from qualified domestic relations orders on Zale's pensions. On September 3,2013, Zale Wood's attorney withdrew. On September 18,2013, the day of the second hearing for entry of the final decree, Zale moved to continue the hearing because he had yet to replace his lawyer. The trial court denied the motion to continue. Zale argued, without counsel, the merits of the entry of the findings and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e967dcae-ce9c-4645-8173-57772ea788da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2828906-2828906","title":"CourtListener opinion 2828906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Zale Wood next contends that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"928 P.2d 1108","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d maintenance between February 1,2013 and July 31, 2013. She sought future maintenance in the sum of $4,50 1 monthly and an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. The findings and conclusions listed Zale's worker compensation payments as the couple's community property. On August 8, 2013, the day before the hearing, Zale Wood filed an objection to the amount of maintenance in the proposed findings, Diane Wood's request for attorney fees, and to Diane's inclusion of her separate credit cards as community liabilities. On August 9, 2013, the court conducted a hearing to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2829941 Extracted reporter citation: 829 N.E.2d 476. Docket: 49A05-1409-DR-434 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2829941 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: awarded Benny his vehicles, subject to any debts thereon, and his 401(k). The trial court ordered the parties to \"divide [Benny's] Rail Road Retirement Account (Tier 1 and 2) equally. To the extent the plan will not allow any portion to be divided via QDRO, the benefits shall be paid by Husband to Wife when the account reaches pay status.\" Id. at 52. Benny now appeals. Analysis [7] The parties disagree regarding the standard of review. Although characterized as a finding rather than a conclusion, the trial court concluded that a 50/50 division of the marital estate was appropriate. See Fraley v. Minge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y in the dissolution of his marriage to Tonya Harris. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Issues [2] Benny raises two issues, which we restate as: I. whether the trial court properly ordered Benny to pay Tonya half of his Tier I railroad retirement benefits when the account reaches pay status; and II. whether the trial court's distribution of marital property effectuated a 50/50 division of the marital estate. Tonya raises one issue, which we restate as whether she is entitled to appellate attorney fees. Facts [3] Benny and Tonya were married on August 16, 2008. The couple had no children, and bo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: purchase price of the house because that money was - - is coming - - is following her since he is not making a claim on the house.\" Id. at 90. Benny proposed that his Tier II railroad retirement benefits be divided 50/50 and that \"all maritally acquired pension and 401(k) of [Tonya] be divided 50/50.\" Id. at 87. [6] On June 9, 2014, the trial court issued a final order and concluded, \"A Fifty/Fifty (50%/50%) division of the marital estate is appropriate given the circumstances of the parties.\" App. p. 51. The trial court awarded Tonya the marital residence, her car, her bank accounts, and her 401(k) account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8abdc4d4-f30a-430c-9149-10f81c5d46e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2829941-2829941","title":"CourtListener opinion 2829941","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A05-1409-DR-434 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"829 N.E.2d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ce of the house because that money was - - is coming - - is following her since he is not making a claim on the house.\" Id. at 90. Benny proposed that his Tier II railroad retirement benefits be divided 50/50 and that \"all maritally acquired pension and 401(k) of [Tonya] be divided 50/50.\" Id. at 87. [6] On June 9, 2014, the trial court issued a final order and concluded, \"A Fifty/Fifty (50%/50%) division of the marital estate is appropriate given the circumstances of the parties.\" App. p. 51. The trial court awarded Tonya the marital residence, her car, her bank accounts, and her 401(k) account. In addi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2831053 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2831053 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rce. Wife shall pay all taxes, penalties and interest assessed as a result of receiving said pension. It is the understanding of the parties that an order to allocate these benefits may not be honored unless it is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as defined under Section 414 (p) of the \"Internal Revenue Code of 1986\", 100 Stat. 2085, 26 USC1, as amended. Wife or her attorney shall be responsible for drafting and filing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument. Both parties will fully cooperate in the drafting and signing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument compatible with the d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: at a bank earning $12.15 an hour and she received approximately $600.00 a month in pension benefits. Appellee testified that she worked 37 hours a week. According to appellee, her monthly living expenses were $2,058.00 and she had to dip into some of the retirement benefits that she received in the divorce to make ends meet. {¶9} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked the parties to file post-hearing closing arguments. Pursuant to a Decision and Order filed on January 15, 2015, the trial court found that there had been a substantial change in circumstances and ordered that appellant pay spousal support t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 013. He testified that before his prison sentence, he earned approximately $60,000.00 a year in 2008 working for Stone Container and had made over $50,000.00 at the time of his criminal trial in 2009. Appellant testified that he was in contact with Central Pension about his Stone Container pension and testified that he would receive approximately $1,500.00 a month Coshocton County, Case No. 2015CA0002 5 from that pension. Appellant testified that he received $1,912.00 a month in Social Security benefits and $1,525.55 in benefits from the Veteran's Administration (\"VA\"). When asked, appellant stated that he did n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22bfcf3b-26ae-4794-b410-b4307aca4a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2831053-2831053","title":"CourtListener opinion 2831053","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f the complaint for divorce. Wife shall pay all taxes, penalties and interest assessed as a result of receiving said pension. It is the understanding of the parties that an order to allocate these benefits may not be honored unless it is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as defined under Section 414 (p) of the \"Internal Revenue Code of 1986\", 100 Stat. 2085, 26 USC1, as amended. Wife or her attorney shall be responsible for drafting and filing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument. Both parties will fully cooperate in the drafting and signing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument compatible with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2847196 Extracted reporter citation: 112 F. Supp. 2d 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2847196 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aw from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appellees. As part of the divorce proceedings, the divorce court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), under which Appellees were to pay a portion of Mr. Jones's pension funds to Appellant with interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: JONES V. AMERICAN AIRLINES COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-179-CV SHARON E. JONES APPELLANT V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND APPELLEES AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. PILOT RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM ------------ FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------ Appellant Sharon E. Jones appeals from a turnover order directing her to pay $410,540.32, plus any post-judgment interest, into the registry of the court for the benefit of Appellees American Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ican Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program. Jones challenges the turnover order in two issues, arguing that the trial court erred in its implied findings (1) that her Individual Retirement Account (\"IRA\"), into which the pension fund payments were rolled over, did not qualify under the Internal Revenue Code and (2) that the funds ordered turned over by the trial court were not exempt under Texas law from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa3a78fd-9450-452a-a8f3-0f7845dba553","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847196-2847196","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847196","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"112 F. Supp. 2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: st. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 et seq. (1999 & Supp. 2003). Under ERISA, in the event of a divorce, benefits due under the terms of an ERISA plan may be transferred to a participant's former spouse according to the terms of a valid QDRO. Id . § 1056(d)(3)(A); Day v. Wall , 112 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Wis. 2000). Mr. Jones asserted that Appel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2847197 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2847197 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: roperty. We affirm. I. F actual and P rocedural B ackground In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appellees. As part of the divorce proceedings, the divorce court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), under which Appellees were to pay a portion of Mr. Jones's pension funds to Appellant with interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-179-CV SHARON E. JONES APPELLANT V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND APPELLEES AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. PILOT RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM ------------ FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------ Appellant Sharon E. Jones appeals from a turnover order directing her to pay $410,540.32, plus any post-judgment interest, into the registry of the court for the benefit of Appellees American Airlines, Inc. and Ameri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: an Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program. Jones challenges the turnover order in two issues, arguing that the trial court erred in its implied findings (1) that her Individual Retirement Account (\"IRA\"), into which the pension fund payments were rolled over, did not qualify under the Internal Revenue Code and (2) that the funds ordered turned over by the trial court were not exempt under Texas law from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. F actual and P rocedural B ackground In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b90b2ee5-ce02-402c-93a5-d20f84041c87","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2847197-2847197","title":"CourtListener opinion 2847197","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: h interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 et seq. (1999 & Supp. 2003). Under ERISA, in the event of a divorce, benefits due under the terms of an ERISA plan may be transferred to a participant's former spouse according to the terms of a valid QDRO. Id . § 1056(d)(3)(A); Day v. Wall , 112 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Wis. 2000). Mr. Jones asserted that Appellees wrongful"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2855618 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2855618 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ee, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that the trial court erred by signing a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: irement plans for Murphy, but the trial court failed to include such language in the decree. The settlement agreement provides that Murphy is to receive [a]ny and all sums . . . and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's [Murphy's] past, present or future employment . . . and ½ of Respondent's interest in FERS and [h]er ½ of the community portion of his USAF retirement with right of survivorship. The trial court's first decree was s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the first decree, does not mention Murphy's survivorship rights. But the \"Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order for Division of Federal Employees' Retirement System Benefits\" states that \"Murphy is awarded a former spouse survivor annuity,\" and the Amended Domestic Relations Order provides that, with regard to Leveille's Air Force benefits, \"the disposable retirement pay awarded in this order to Marrita Murphy shall continue until the death of Daniel Jude Leveille or Marrita Murphy. Marrita Murphy has the option of exercising her right of survivorship.\" Murphy argues that the trial court erred by failing to expressly award her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98b97321-5617-42b9-bb6e-bea17d15b5ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855618-2855618","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: filed motions to modify the decree, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2855619 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2855619 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Forms Manual Form 19-31, applicable comment 8 for dividing the community military retirement\"; and that the trial court erred by inserting the words \"disability plan or benefits\" into the paragraph of the decree awarding to Leveille his Air Force and FERS retirement benefits accruing before the parties were married and after they divorced. To preserve a complaint of error in a judgment, a party must inform the trial court of its objection by a motion to amend or correct the judgment, a motion for new trial, or some other similar method. Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 133, 144 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tirement plans for Murphy, but the trial court failed to include such language in the decree. The settlement agreement provides that Murphy is to receive [a]ny and all sums . . . and any other rights related to any profit- sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's [Murphy's] past, present or future employment . . . and ½ of Respondent's interest in FERS and [h]er ½ of the community portion of his USAF retirement with right of survivorship. (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: first decree, does not mention Murphy's survivorship rights. But the \"Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order for Division of Federal Employees' Retirement System Benefits\" states that \"Murphy is awarded a former spouse survivor annuity,\" and the Amended Domestic Relations Order provides that, with regard to Leveille's Air Force benefits, \"the disposable retirement pay awarded in this order to Marrita 6 Murphy shall continue until the death of Daniel Jude Leveille or Marrita Murphy. Marrita Murphy has the option of exercising her right of survivorship.\" Murphy argues that the trial court erred by failing to expressly award h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"668cf24f-64d9-4d0d-b834-deac0d1250e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2855619-2855619","title":"CourtListener opinion 2855619","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: led motions to modify the decree, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. 2 The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion 1. Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2864919 Extracted reporter citation: 394 S.W.2d 494. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2864919 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: H-14, infra. .... 4 The property division in the decree sometimes refers to February 17 as the Adate of divorce@ and presumes that a qualified domestic-relations order effectuating the division would be rendered on the same date as the divorce decree; the QDRO was signed April 20, 2001. 3 H-14 . . . SAVE AND EXCEPT for an undivided one-half (2) interest in and to all Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent and vested before February 17, 2000, awarded to Petitioner, MARCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to Petitioner, MARCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of Respondent=s past, present, or future employment, including, but not limited to, the following: .... b. One-half (2) of Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent, ROBERT LESTER ANSLEY, and vested before February 17, 2000. .... d. Any stock options granted and/or veste"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of Respondent=s past, present, or future employment, including, but not limited to, the following: .... b. One-half (2) of Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent, ROBERT LESTER ANSLEY, and vested before February 17, 2000. .... d. Any stock options granted and/or vested to Respo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9765c3a-507a-44fd-9fa5-7eaab98a9ebe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2864919-2864919","title":"CourtListener opinion 2864919","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"394 S.W.2d 494","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n February 17 and those existing 2 The plan=s method or formula for determining plan vesting is not in the record. Moreover, neither the plan nor a description or summary of plan benefits is in the record. 3 Item six of the agreement states, AQDRO 50% of 401k and 50% of stock options see exhibit B.@ 2 after that date.4 The divorce hearing, however, was not held until seven months later, on September 6, and the decree was signed that same day. In the interim, Dell granted Robert a significant number of additional stock options. These additional options were not specifically addressed by the mediated settle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2869683 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2869683 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed that the divorce was granted and that Mrs. Cook would receive a 34.8% interest in Mr. Cook's retirement benefits. Id. at 130-31. The trial court subsequently held a hearing to consider the final divorce decree and the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at 131. At that time, the court signed a written decree awarding Mrs. Cook a 100% interest in the benefits. Id. Mr. Cook filed a motion to modify, complaining that the trial court's written decree should be reformed to comport with its oral ruling, and the trial court denied it. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, stating that the trial c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: issue on appeal, therefore, is confined to whether the trial court committed reversible error by issuing a final divorce 6 The closest Mrs. Cash comes to challenging the decree's legal correctness is in regards to the disability benefits. She states that \"retirement benefits are a community asset to be divided between the married parties in the event of a divorce,\" and complains that the court should have awarded her half of all benefits payable in the future, as was done in the oral ruling, rather than just half of any benefits payable during marriage. Yet, Mrs. Cash only cites to a case dealing with a military pension plan,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vorce,\" and complains that the court should have awarded her half of all benefits payable in the future, as was done in the oral ruling, rather than just half of any benefits payable during marriage. Yet, Mrs. Cash only cites to a case dealing with a military pension plan, see Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1976), and provides no authority to show that the court abused its discretion by not awarding her half of any future disability payments. Trial courts are given broad discretion to determine how assets should be divided in a divorce action, which will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d03e926-536d-4141-937a-4305dae35388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2869683-2869683","title":"CourtListener opinion 2869683","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the trial court orally ruled that the divorce was granted and that Mrs. Cook would receive a 34.8% interest in Mr. Cook's retirement benefits. Id. at 130-31. The trial court subsequently held a hearing to consider the final divorce decree and the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at 131. At that time, the court signed a written decree awarding Mrs. Cook a 100% interest in the benefits. Id. Mr. Cook filed a motion to modify, complaining that the trial court's written decree should be reformed to comport with its oral ruling, and the trial court denied it. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, stating that the t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2870066 Extracted reporter citation: 717 S.W.2d 311. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2870066 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd her motion to modify the parent-child relationship. The district court rendered a final decree of divorce on June 22, 2001, and signed a qualified domestic relations order on September 27, 2002. In a subsequent action, Cynthia Vaughn complained that the qualified domestic relations order impermissibly altered the division of marital property set out in the divorce decree and, as a result, diminished her share of her former husband's retirement plans. She also alleged material and substantial changes in her financial status and argued for an increase in her child-support payments. The district court denied her petitions. We will affirm."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ember 27, 2002. In a subsequent action, Cynthia Vaughn complained that the qualified domestic relations order impermissibly altered the division of marital property set out in the divorce decree and, as a result, diminished her share of her former husband's retirement plans. She also alleged material and substantial changes in her financial status and argued for an increase in her child-support payments. The district court denied her petitions. We will affirm. BACKGROUND Cynthia and Joseph Vaughn were married on February 20, 1988, and had three children together. Cynthia Vaughn is self-employed as a chiropractor and Jos"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ssession of the children. Memorializing a previous agreement between the parties, the Decree also provided that Joseph Vaughn, as part of his child-support obligation, would pay off a $17,866.90 marital debt from a loan taken against his Southwest Airlines 401(k) plan.1 In exchange, the parties agreed that Joseph 1 The circumstances concerning this loan are not a part of this record and are not at issue on appeal. 2 Vaughn's obligation to pay $450.00 per month in child support would not begin until May 1, 2005, at which point the loan would be paid off. The Southwest Airlines 401(k) plan was one of two reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d357a81-938e-4283-84b2-663a8584977a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2870066-2870066","title":"CourtListener opinion 2870066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"717 S.W.2d 311","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ator would need in order to calculate and send to each former spouse the correct amount of payment. See id. § 804.003(f). An order becomes \"qualified\" by containing statutorily required information, such as the name and address of the plan participant and the alternate payee (non-employee former spouse), the amount or percentage to be paid to each, or the method for calculating the amount to be paid, and the number of payments or period of time to which the order applies. Id. A party may petition a court to render a QDRO if the court that rendered a final decree of divorce did not provide a QDRO permitting payment of benefits t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2872017 Extracted reporter citation: 87 S.W.3d 538. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2872017 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tgage costs incurred by [Peters] from July 2002, until the sale of [the home] have been paid by [Douglas] to [Peters].\" The other relevant provision of the decree is the award to Douglas of fifty percent of Peters's Dell stock options. It appears that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order attached as appendix A to the divorce decree was never executed, requiring Douglas to bring legal action to receive her share of the stock options. Approximately one year after the entry of the divorce decree, Douglas filed a motion to enforce the decree alleging that Peters had not transferred fifty percent of his Dell stock options to Douglas. Peter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 575. In our case, the district 9 court held a hearing on the motions to enforce and granted the relief sought by both parties. The district court properly offset the two judgments and awarded a net recovery to Douglas. We overrule Douglas's fifth issue. Retirement Accounts In her sixth and final issue, Douglas complains that the \"June 25, 2002, Ruling of the Court for the division of retirement savings plans ignored case law, is substantially unequal, constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates the rights of Douglas.\" This is essentially a challenge to the division of property set forth in the divorce decree. Dougla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s incurred by [Peters] from July 2002, until the sale of [the home] have been paid by [Douglas] to [Peters].\" The other relevant provision of the decree is the award to Douglas of fifty percent of Peters's Dell stock options. It appears that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order attached as appendix A to the divorce decree was never executed, requiring Douglas to bring legal action to receive her share of the stock options. Approximately one year after the entry of the divorce decree, Douglas filed a motion to enforce the decree alleging that Peters had not transferred fifty percent of his Dell stock options to Douglas. Peter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5809c89d-70df-4bd1-96e9-675e17f6e7d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2872017-2872017","title":"CourtListener opinion 2872017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Josephine Douglas-Peters1 brings this pro se appeal of the district court's order granting both her motion and her former husband James Nathaniel Peters's counter-motion for enforcement of the property division set forth in their divorce decree. The order offsets the two awards, directing Peters to pay Douglas $2,830.82. We reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Douglas and Peters were divorced in May 2002. The divorce decree appointed Douglas and Peters joint managing conservators o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2874326 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2874326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 154,659-A, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises from the district court's entry of a divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in the divorce proceeding between Nancey E. Vanloh, appellant, and Sidney W. Vanloh, appellee. In four points of error, Nancey complains of the district court's failure to enter findings of fact and of the court's order clarifying the QDRO. We affirm the district court's judgment. The parties were divorced June 3, 1996, and a QDRO was entered on July"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to the QDRO, and Sidney filed his Motion for Clarification and Request for Issuance of Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. At a hearing on May 31, 2007, Sidney testified that, as of June 3, 1996, he would have been receiving $3,365.00 per month in retirement benefits. Although half of $3,365.00 was $1,682.50, when payments began upon Sidney's retirement in 2006, Nancey was receiving $1,963.14 per month.1 The district court granted Sidney's motion, modified the QDRO, and ordered Nancey to repay the excess retirement benefits she had received since payments began in June 2006—an amount of $3,648.32. The district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Sidney W. Vanloh, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 154,659-A, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises from the district court's entry of a divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in the divorce proceeding between Nancey E. Vanloh, appellant, and Sidney W. Vanloh, appellee. In four points of error, Nancey complains of the district court's failure to enter findings of fact and of the court's order clarifying the QDRO. We affirm the district court's judgment. The parties were divorced June 3, 1996, and a QDRO was entered on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7ed741-fb65-45c2-aa47-e154deaedd9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2874326-2874326","title":"CourtListener opinion 2874326","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: an appellant does not usually have to guess at the reasons for the trial court's ruling. Id. at 802. Here, the sole issue before the district court was whether the wording of the QDRO should be clarified to allow for its proper administration based on the property division set out in the divorce decree. In issuing the order granting Sidney's motion for clarification, the district court set out the basis for its decision: 1 The payment reflects Sidney's post-divorce salary adjustments. 2 The Court finds that clarification is necessary to conform the language of the decree and prior Qualified Domestic Relations Order t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecedc1ba-cd4c-4bde-8402-6499496ad005","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.W.3d 845","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2876131 Extracted reporter citation: 134 S.W.3d 845. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2876131 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecedc1ba-cd4c-4bde-8402-6499496ad005","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.W.3d 845","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecedc1ba-cd4c-4bde-8402-6499496ad005","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.W.3d 845","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ivorce); McKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight, 132 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (appellant participated in hearing resulting in final divorce decree, but did not participate in proceedings resulting in clarification order, amended qualified domestic relations orders, and stock division order at issue on appeal); Campsey v. Campsey, 111 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (appellant participated in TRO hearing governing conduct while divorce pending); cf. Kisinger v. Kisinger, 748 S.W.2d 2, 4 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (appellant signed order modifying custody agreement, but"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecedc1ba-cd4c-4bde-8402-6499496ad005","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876131-2876131","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S.W.3d 845","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight, 132 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (appellant participated in hearing resulting in final divorce decree, but did not participate in proceedings resulting in clarification order, amended qualified domestic relations orders, and stock division order at issue on appeal); Campsey v. Campsey, 111 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (appellant participated in TRO hearing governing conduct while divorce pending); cf. Kisinger v. Kisinger, 748 S.W.2d 2, 4 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (appellant signed order modifying custody agreement, but"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2876345 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months Mr. Beyer was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2876345 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: otal of 218, not 219, months while serving in the United States Armed Forces. At the hearing, the trial court indicated that he would \"sign exactly what [the associate judge] said.\" The record does not include the associate judge's finding in this regard. The qualified domestic relations order signed by the trial court after the hearing but prior to entering the findings and conclusions is consistent with the evidence and recites that during their marriage, Mr. Beyer served \"eighteen (18) years and two (2) months [218 months] of creditable service.\" 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial judge is charged with dividing the community in a \"just and righ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ivorce decree awarding her 34.5% of Eugene Albert Beyer's disposable retirement pay received as a result of his service in the United States Armed Forces. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated the percentage of Mr. Beyer's retirement benefits to which Ms. Beyer is entitled pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement. We will reverse the domestic relations order to the extent it awards Ms. Beyer only 34.5% of the benefits and render judgment that Ms. Beyer be awarded 42.085% of Mr. Beyer's disposable retirement pay. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Beyers were married on April 5, 196"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: CV Phyllis Arlene Beyer, Appellant v. Eugene Albert Beyer, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2004-1155, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Phyllis Arlene Beyer appeals from the domestic relations order portion of a divorce decree awarding her 34.5% of Eugene Albert Beyer's disposable retirement pay received as a result of his service in the United States Armed Forces. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated the percentage of Mr. Beyer's retirement benefits to which Ms. Beyer is entitled pursuant to a mediated settlement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d0b54a-b668-4faa-a9ee-cb73904f1a0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2876345-2876345","title":"CourtListener opinion 2876345","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Mr. Beyer was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tends should be excluded from the creditable-service calculation. Mr. Beyer argues that his creditable service commenced when he began service in the National Guard on December 6, 1954. Consequently, Mr. Beyer contends on appeal that the denominator in the community property computation should be 317 months, and Ms. Beyer should receive 34.5% of his retirement benefits. Ms. Beyer counters that his creditable service did not begin until 2 January 15, 1960, when he entered United States Armed Forces active duty. She asserts that the denominator should be 259 months, which entitles her to 42.085% of the benefits. Pursuant t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2877444 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: after being abated by our order of June 19. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2877444 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: other reasons, if, as, and when received . 5. 50% of all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Elia Hernandez's] past employment with Federal Aviation Authority as of July 17, 1992 . * * * * * * * [Elia Hernandez] is awarded the following as [her] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 5. All righ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f, as, and when received . 5. 50% of all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Elia Hernandez's] past employment with Federal Aviation Authority as of July 17, 1992 . * * * * * * * [Elia Hernandez] is awarded the following as [her] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 5. All right, title,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: een, Justice Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 12, 1998 REVERSED AND REMANDED This appeal is reinstated on the docket after being abated by our order of June 19, 1998. Elia Hernandez appeals from a clarification order and a Domestic Relations Order interpreting the divorce decree of her and her ex-husband, Pete Hernandez. On appeal, her primary contention is that the order is an impermissible modification of the original decree. We agree and we reverse the trial court's order. Factual and Procedural Background On August 12, 1992, the parties entered into an agreed divorce decree which dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdcd310d-c98d-4ee9-aac8-b87fcaf70a2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2877444-2877444","title":"CourtListener opinion 2877444","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"after being abated by our order of June 19","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: riginal decree. We agree and we reverse the trial court's order. Factual and Procedural Background On August 12, 1992, the parties entered into an agreed divorce decree which dissolved their marriage and divided their marital property. As part of the property division, the parties' retirement benefits were divided in the following manner: [Pete Hernandez] is awarded the following as [his] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 4. All right, title, and interest in and to 50% of the United States Army disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of Pete Hernandez's service in the United States"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9e4c03d-e04e-4fb5-9908-583bea1eb9e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692","title":"CourtListener opinion 2879692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2879692 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2879692 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9e4c03d-e04e-4fb5-9908-583bea1eb9e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692","title":"CourtListener opinion 2879692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9e4c03d-e04e-4fb5-9908-583bea1eb9e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692","title":"CourtListener opinion 2879692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Mansell, 490 U.S. at 585-86; Wallace v. Fuller, 832 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ); Gallegos v. Gallegos, 788 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, no writ). \"Disposable retired pay\" is defined to exclude disability pay, including retirement benefits that may be waived in order to collect disability benefits. 10 U.S.C.A. at § 1408(a)(4)(C); see Thomas v. Piorkowski, 286 S.W.3d 662, 666 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.); Limbaugh v. Limbaugh, 71 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). A divorce court cannot apportion military retirement pay which has been waived to receive Veterans Ad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9e4c03d-e04e-4fb5-9908-583bea1eb9e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692","title":"CourtListener opinion 2879692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: after be made by SERVICE MEMBER shall not reduce the amount of the retired pay that the Court has herein awarded to FORMER SPOUSE. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that SERVICE MEMBER shall not merge his military retired pay with any other pension and/or shall not waive any portion of his military retired pay in order to receive disability pay and/or shall not pursue any course of action which would defeat, reduce or limit FORMER SPOUSE's right to receive FORMER SPOUSE's full separate property share of SERVICE MEMBER's retired pay as awarded herein, unless otherwise ordered herein. Second, Kevi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9e4c03d-e04e-4fb5-9908-583bea1eb9e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2879692-2879692","title":"CourtListener opinion 2879692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Justice Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 2, 2009 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Kevin Scott Gillin appeals a divorce decree, complaining that two provisions of the incorporated domestic relations order improperly restrict his right to elect military disability benefits and waive military retirement pay. We modify the decree and affirm it as modified. 04-09-00119-CV BACKGROUND Kevin and Lori Ann Gillin were married in 2004. During the marriage, Kevin served four years and one month of military service out of a total of twenty-five years and one mont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f65a7ce6-bfe6-454d-9bf1-a0fdb7f4e14d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665","title":"CourtListener opinion 2881665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"386 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2881665 Extracted reporter citation: 386 U.S. 738. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2881665 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f65a7ce6-bfe6-454d-9bf1-a0fdb7f4e14d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665","title":"CourtListener opinion 2881665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"386 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f65a7ce6-bfe6-454d-9bf1-a0fdb7f4e14d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665","title":"CourtListener opinion 2881665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"386 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ivities in this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in telephone conference October 25, 2002"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f65a7ce6-bfe6-454d-9bf1-a0fdb7f4e14d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665","title":"CourtListener opinion 2881665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"386 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The underlying activities in this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in tele"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f65a7ce6-bfe6-454d-9bf1-a0fdb7f4e14d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2881665-2881665","title":"CourtListener opinion 2881665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"386 U.S. 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in telephone conference October 25, 2002"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fea9393-1644-478b-abfc-5cccb34c3601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2884433 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2884433 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fea9393-1644-478b-abfc-5cccb34c3601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fea9393-1644-478b-abfc-5cccb34c3601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d pursuant to an agreement incident to divorce, which amicably divided the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fea9393-1644-478b-abfc-5cccb34c3601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment after subtracting the loan balance (eg since the vested balance as of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fea9393-1644-478b-abfc-5cccb34c3601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884433-2884433","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vested balance as of January 8, 2008 was $32,634.05 as set forth on the attached participant's summary and the loan balance was $5350.74 the wife would therefore receive $13,641.65 which is one-half of $27,283.31) more particularly described in a qualified domestic relations order signed by this court. While the court set out a current valuation and estimate of sum to be awarded if the distribution were to occur when the judgment was signed, this language simply awarded Josephine one-half of the value of the 401(k). After stating \\[t]he applicable monies to be paid will be taken proportionately out of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224ca685-ccc2-4f5a-ae0a-07e7bc4b2255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884434","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2884434 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2884434 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224ca685-ccc2-4f5a-ae0a-07e7bc4b2255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884434","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224ca685-ccc2-4f5a-ae0a-07e7bc4b2255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884434","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d pursuant to an agreement incident to divorce, which amicably divided the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224ca685-ccc2-4f5a-ae0a-07e7bc4b2255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884434","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment after subtracting the loan balance (eg since the vested balance as of Jan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224ca685-ccc2-4f5a-ae0a-07e7bc4b2255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2884434-2884434","title":"CourtListener opinion 2884434","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vested balance as of January 8, 2008 was $32,634.05 as set forth on the attached participant's summary and the loan balance was $5350.74 the wife would therefore receive $13,641.65 which is one-half of $27,283.31) more particularly described in a qualified domestic relations order signed by this court. While the court set out a current valuation and estimate of sum to be awarded if the distribution were to occur when the judgment was signed, this language simply awarded Josephine one-half of the value of the 401(k). After stating \\[t]he applicable monies to be paid will be taken proportionately out of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2889268 Extracted reporter citation: 216 S.W.2d 805. Docket: 07-02-0421-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2889268 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ing by assignment. 2 Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. a matter of law (1) by substantively changing the terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO3 after it had lost plenary jurisdiction; (2) by substantively changing the express terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO to re-allocate his savings plan benefits contrary to Texas law; (3) in substantively changing the terms of the decree because such change was barred by res judicata; (4) by giving retroactive effect to its clarification order; (5) by assessing interest in its September 4, 2002 order at ten percent requiring a remittitur and reformation of judgment if me"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d remand the QDRO signed September 11, 2002, to the trial court with instructions to correct the retirement portion beginning at paragraph five to reflect verbatim the language of the original QDRO regarding distribution of Brenda's fifty percent of Paul's retirement plan, but not otherwise. Accordingly, the judgment signed September 4, 2002 awarding Brenda Brogdon (Chance) $55,664 is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice 11"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: eral denial, a specific denial that the QDRO is an instrument of the Court or that it needs to be modified, and a prayer for general relief and attorney's fees. His pleadings, however, did not raise any affirmative defenses, i.e. preemption of state law by ERISA, res judicata, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. Before announcing ready, counsel for Brenda outlined her position. Then, counsel for Paul advised the court: 1. The history stated by Brenda's attorney was substantially correct; 2. Acknowledge no real fact disputes; 3. Paul made withdrawals under the erroneous assumption that Chevron had sen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c690f20f-498f-4e7a-82ed-63e7b9920d81","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889268-2889268","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889268","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"216 S.W.2d 805","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: onale expressed herein, we affirm the judgment signed September 4, 2002. Brenda and Paul were divorced in 1986 and their decree contained a QDRO which, among other provisions, awarded Brenda one-half of the interest in Paul's Chevron Profit 3 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 4 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 2 Sharing/Savings Plan. Several months after the divorce, Chevron's attorneys informed Brenda's attorney that in order for the decree to qualify as a QDRO, both parties and their attorneys needed to sign an agreement letter. By letter dated December 15, 1986, to Paul's attorney, Brenda's attorney r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0f57a6d-3bb9-485f-b858-0019e9980ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2889269 Docket: 07-02-0421-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2889269 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0f57a6d-3bb9-485f-b858-0019e9980ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0f57a6d-3bb9-485f-b858-0019e9980ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at he pay Brenda Chance, formerly Brenda Brogdon, $55,664 plus $750 costs and bearing ten percent interest. By his points of error, Paul asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law (1) by substantively changing the terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO (3) after it had lost plenary jurisdiction; (2) by substantively changing the express terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO to re-allocate his savings plan benefits contrary to Texas law; (3) in substantively changing the terms of the decree because such change was barred by res judicata; (4) by giving retroactive effect to its clarification order;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0f57a6d-3bb9-485f-b858-0019e9980ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2889269-2889269","title":"CourtListener opinion 2889269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-02-0421-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s: (7) in awarding Brenda a proportionate part of his first distribution from his savings plan because the 1986 decree, QDRO, and May 17, 2002 findings awarded said distribution exclusively to him as his separate property; and (8) in its calculations under ERISA (4) requiring a suggestion of remittitur or a reversal and remand for proper recalculation. By his ninth point, Paul requests that if this Court remands the matter to the trial court for recalculation, it do so with additional instructions in light of the uncertainty of the actuarial assumptions being employed in the deposition evidence of non-attorneys"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2890262 Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 37. Docket: 07-03-0445-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2890262 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: forcement by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2. Daniel does not present any error in the trial court's failure to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. in\\> Mandamus Standard of Review"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ee of divorce. (1) By a handwritten order signed on September 9, 2003, among other things, the trial court denied a motion for new trial and all other pending motions. Also, on that same date, the trial court signed an order regarding Nancy's civil service retirement benefits and a qualifying court order regarding Daniel's military reserve retirement benefits. By his notice of appeal, Daniel indicated he was appealing the judgment signed June 27, 2003, and the order denying the motion for new trial signed September 9, 2003. Pursuant to Rule 34.6(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Daniel requested preparati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2. Daniel does not present any error in the trial court's failure to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. in\\> Mandamus Standard of Review"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"291ff9a0-7775-4df2-8ab6-f21172ed5810","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890262-2890262","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890262","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , appeals from a divorce decree upon a non-jury trial, contending the trial court erred in making an unequal division of the property to appellee Nancy L. Clayton. By three points of error, he contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to set aside the property division as sought by both parties, (2) entry of the federal civil service retirement system order, and (3) entry of the military (reserve) qualifying court order. We affirm. Following a hearing held on March 5, 2003, on the petition for divorce, on June 27, 2003, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce. (1) By a handwritten order signed on Septembe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2890264 Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 37. Docket: 07-03-0445-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2890264 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enforcement by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2 constitutes the entire record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues. Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(4). By his first point, Daniel contends the trial court erred in failing to set aside the property division following the September 9, 2003 hearing on his motio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecree of divorce.1 By a handwritten order signed on September 9, 2003, among other things, the trial court denied a motion for new trial and all other pending motions. Also, on that same date, the trial court signed an order regarding Nancy's civil service retirement benefits and a qualifying court order regarding Daniel's military reserve retirement benefits. By his notice of appeal, Daniel indicated he was appealing the judgment signed June 27, 2003, and the order denying the motion for new trial signed September 9, 2003. Pursuant to Rule 34.6(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Daniel requested preparation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2 constitutes the entire record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues. Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(4). By his first point, Daniel contends the trial court erred in failing to set aside the property division following the September 9, 2003 hearing on his motio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee24a708-e8f4-4ca2-81b6-adfbf340c760","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2890264-2890264","title":"CourtListener opinion 2890264","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-03-0445-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 S.W.2d 37","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e, appeals from a divorce decree upon a non-jury trial, contending the trial court erred in making an unequal division of the property to appellee Nancy L. Clayton. By three points of error, he contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to set aside the property division as sought by both parties, (2) entry of the federal civil service retirement system order, and (3) entry of the military (reserve) qualifying court order. We affirm. Following a hearing held on March 5, 2003, on the petition for divorce, on June 27, 2003, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce.1 By a handwritten order signed on September 9,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a00a67-591c-4a43-8a5c-a9661a84c1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748","title":"CourtListener opinion 2904748","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2904748 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2904748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a00a67-591c-4a43-8a5c-a9661a84c1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748","title":"CourtListener opinion 2904748","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a00a67-591c-4a43-8a5c-a9661a84c1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748","title":"CourtListener opinion 2904748","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: llowing Richardson to withdraw $9,150.62 from the Vanguard Growth Index Fund, which stood in the name of both parties. On February 25, 2004, Richardson filed a Motion for Enforcement of Judgment. On March 4, 2004, Clakley filed a Motion to Enter Qualified Domestic Relations order requesting the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order in the form required by the plan administrator to enforce the division of community property set forth in the Final Decree of Divorce. The trial court signed the qualified domestic relations order submitted by Clakley's attorney. Neither party filed a motion for clarification of the F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44a00a67-591c-4a43-8a5c-a9661a84c1da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2904748-2904748","title":"CourtListener opinion 2904748","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Court Newton County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3382-D MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 16, 2003, the trial court signed an agreed Final Decree of Divorce between Thomas Andrew Clakley and Linda Fay Richardson which provided for the division of community property of the parties, and awarded Richardson the following: Any and all sums of cash in the possession of or subject to the control of [Richardson]; including money on account in any financial institution standing in [Richardson's] name or from which [Richardson] has the right to withdraw funds, subject to the provisions of the following subparagraph; and,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9f05ec1-47a5-4f97-9ef3-b8cd6dd37522","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837","title":"CourtListener opinion 2918837","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28 MDA 2015 : Appellants :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2918837 Extracted case name: C.M.S. v. D.E.H. Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 28 MDA 2015 : Appellants :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2918837 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9f05ec1-47a5-4f97-9ef3-b8cd6dd37522","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837","title":"CourtListener opinion 2918837","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28 MDA 2015 : Appellants :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9f05ec1-47a5-4f97-9ef3-b8cd6dd37522","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2918837-2918837","title":"CourtListener opinion 2918837","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28 MDA 2015 : Appellants :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: as an arrearage of approximately $2,000.00 in child support, which he asserted was due to periods of unemployment of approximately three months, and other difficulties making payments, but that he has been consistently making payments as required under a Domestic Relations order. His payments total what he is required to pay by the Domestic Relations support order. Father has never sought to contest the support amount, nor has he made efforts to refuse employment in an effort to avoid paying support. The Court finds that following the child's conception, Mother and Father initially lived for approximately three to four mon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2935963 Extracted case name: CARTER v. OPM PER CURIAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2935963 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: conclud- ed that, because Alan had retired, it was barred by stat- ute and regulation from processing the request to change the survivor annuity based on the amendment—a change that would have reduced the annuity-funding amounts that OPM was withholding from retirement benefits being paid to Alan. The Merit Systems Protection Board agreed with OPM that the amended order was ineffective be- cause it was issued after Alan had retired. We affirm. BACKGROUND While working for the Army, Alan was married to Ka- ren. Their marriage, which began on March 26, 1988, ended in divorce on March 3, 1995. On that date, the Circuit Court of St"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tlement agreement signed by the parties. The CARTER v. OPM 3 marital settlement agreement provided that, to comply with OPM regulations, the court would enter a domestic relations order detailing Karen's right to receive a portion of Alan's eventual federal pension benefits. The state court entered the domestic relations order on June 8, 1995. It awarded Karen a portion of Alan's monthly benefit and, separately, provided for Karen to receive a former spouse survivor annuity under federal law: Under section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, Karen Kay Carter is awarded the maximum possible former spouse sur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ce Retirement System in the same amount to which Karen Kay Carter would have been entitled if the divorce had not occurred.\" S.A. 68. Years later, Alan retired. A few years after that, he submitted to the Office of Personnel Management an amended state-court domestic relations order, which stated that his ex-wife should receive a lower amount of any former spouse survivor annuity, keyed to the amount of time (seven years) they were married. S.A. 59. Karen and Alan agreed that this lower amount was what they had originally intended years earlier. But OPM conclud- ed that, because Alan had retired, it was barred by stat- ute and regulati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e2b2400-680d-40b5-bc0f-3cc028ce6543","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2935963-2935963","title":"CourtListener opinion 2935963","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: RIAM. Alan Carter was a federal employee at the time that he and Karen Kay Carter divorced. We will call them by their first names for simplicity. A state-court \"domestic relations order\" at the time provided expressly for an allocation of any \"former spouse survivor annuity\" that Karen might receive upon Alan's death, referring express- ly to the statutory provision authorizing such an annuity, 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h). The order awarded Karen the \"maxi- mum possible former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System in the same amount to which Karen Kay Carter would have been entitled if the divorce had not o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"762fca0a-6ed1-4416-bd6b-710dffbbc303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893","title":"CourtListener opinion 2952893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.3d 802","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2952893 Extracted reporter citation: 168 S.W.3d 802. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2952893 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"762fca0a-6ed1-4416-bd6b-710dffbbc303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893","title":"CourtListener opinion 2952893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.3d 802","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"762fca0a-6ed1-4416-bd6b-710dffbbc303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893","title":"CourtListener opinion 2952893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.3d 802","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ding ended in a settlement and divorce decree, dated February 22, 1996, that awarded Rodriguez a portion of the retirement and 401(k) benefits Brown was to receive from his employer, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The divorce decree contained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order instructing the LCRA to pay a portion of Brown's benefits directly to Rodriguez. Hicks did not properly transmit the Order to the LCRA, however, so when Brown retired in 2003, the LCRA paid Rodriguez's portion of the benefits to Brown. Rodriguez became aware and notified Hicks of this fact in December 2003. Admitting his mistake, Hicks agreed to repres"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"762fca0a-6ed1-4416-bd6b-710dffbbc303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893","title":"CourtListener opinion 2952893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.3d 802","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal grows out of Bryan Hicks's representation of Christina Rodriguez in an earlier divorce proceeding. The resulting divorce decree awarded Rodriguez an interest in her husband's retirement and 401(k) benefits. Hicks failed to notify the husband's employer of this fact, however, so the employer later disbursed Rodriguez's share of the benefits to the husband when he retired. Hicks attempted to recover Rodriguez's share of the benefits from Rodriguez's ex-husband; when that effort failed, Rodriguez sued Hicks for his earlier failure to notify the emplo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"762fca0a-6ed1-4416-bd6b-710dffbbc303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2952893-2952893","title":"CourtListener opinion 2952893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.3d 802","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in a settlement and divorce decree, dated February 22, 1996, that awarded Rodriguez a portion of the retirement and 401(k) benefits Brown was to receive from his employer, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The divorce decree contained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order instructing the LCRA to pay a portion of Brown's benefits directly to Rodriguez. Hicks did not properly transmit the Order to the LCRA, however, so when Brown retired in 2003, the LCRA paid Rodriguez's portion of the benefits to Brown. Rodriguez became aware and notified Hicks of this fact in December 2003. Admitting his mistake, Hicks agreed to repres"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2955992 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2955992 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n of property made or approved in a final decree of divorce or annulment is beyond the power of the divorce court and is unenforceable\"); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003) (stating that the district court \"was without authority to enter a QDRO altering the terms of the decree\"); Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (stating that the district court should have issued a clarifying QDRO because prior QDRO did not divide property consistent with decree and, thus, was void). We can remedy any error in this discrepancy by modifying the DRO to clar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ara Sias-Chinn and Fred Henry Chinn, and dividing their marital property. In eight issues, Barbara1 urges that the district court erred in awarding Fred separate-property portions of her military retirement pay, improperly restricted her right to waive her retirement benefits in order to receive Veterans' Administration (\"VA\") disability pay, and miscalculated the values of numerous other community assets to an extent that the overall property division was manifestly unjust and unfair. We will modify the decree to eliminate the restriction against Barbara waiving her military retirement pay to receive VA disability pay and,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from being changed by a state court order. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Service Member shall not merge her military retired pay with any other pension and shall not pursue any course of action that would defeat, reduce, or limit Former Spouse's right to receive Former Spouse's full separate-property share of Service Member's retired pay as awarded in this order, unless otherwise ordered herein. See Limbaugh, 71 S.W.3d at 17. We will do so. Turning now to Barbara's remaining complaints regarding the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ceb406fe-26a7-4e6e-8615-5099eb44ede0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2955992-2955992","title":"CourtListener opinion 2955992","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: number of months in which the employee spouse served). In the divorce decree, the district court awarded both Barbara and Fred \"[f]ifty percent (50%) of the community interest\" in the other's military retirement pay \"and more particularly specified in the domestic relations order signed by the Court in this cause.\" However, in the domestic relations order (DRO) contemplated by the decree, and also incorporated into it, the district court \"ORDERED AND DECREED THAT FRED HENRY CHINN have judgment against and recover from BARBARA SIAS-CHINN 50% of BARBARA SIAS- 3 CHINN'S disposable retired pay\" without mentioning or distinguishing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2956296 Extracted reporter citation: 236 S.W.3d 343. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2956296 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mately $108,000. Michael made the payments as agreed, and Karen applied a portion of the cash payment to the purchase of a new home. Neither party appealed the divorce decree. Suit for Post-divorce Division of Property Filed In the process of obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as \"the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls\" (the pension plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ren's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as \"the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls\" (the pension plan), valued at approximately $500,000. Karen sought a second QDRO pertaining to the pension plan and filed suit seeking a post-divorce division of the benefits under the pension plan. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.201(either former spouse may file suit to divide property not divided in divorce decree)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as \"the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls\" (the pension plan), valued at approximately $500,000. Karen sought a second QDRO pertaining to the pension plan and filed suit seeking a post-divorce division of the benefits under the pension plan. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.201(either former spouse may"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27e7401b-5e6b-4a92-93e6-c8e808a3eb41","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2956296-2956296","title":"CourtListener opinion 2956296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"236 S.W.3d 343","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 8,000. Michael made the payments as agreed, and Karen applied a portion of the cash payment to the purchase of a new home. Neither party appealed the divorce decree. Suit for Post-divorce Division of Property Filed In the process of obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as \"the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls\" (the pension plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2961330 Extracted case name: M.C. v. S.L. Extracted reporter citation: 523 N.E.2d 332. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2961330 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orders payments toward the decree to be collected from his inmate account. {¶2} For the reasons expressed below, all three assignments of error lack merit. The trial court's decision to overrule the objections to the magistrate's decision and to approve the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") is hereby affirmed. Statement of the Facts and Case {¶3} In July 2008, Plaintiff-Appellee Sandra Lee Miklas, nka Sandra Lee Keller, (\"Appellee\") filed a divorce complaint against Appellant. In April 2009, the trial court granted the divorce. The parties were in agreement on the division of property and the allocation of parental rights. The trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): court appears to have complied with the parties' agreement. However, for purposes of this appeal, one matter was not fully completed at the time of the decree, a QDRO. {¶4} The decree provided Appellee would receive 50% of the marital portion of Appellant's 401(k) account and Appellant would \"obtain whatever paperwork is necessary to effectuate this award.\" 4/8/09 J.E. Appellee was required to prepare a QDRO, \"if necessary.\" 4/8/09 J.E. {¶5} In July 2014, Appellee filed Motion to Enforce Decree requesting the court order Appellant to sign the proposed QDRO. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for September 15, 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: yments toward the decree to be collected from his inmate account. {¶2} For the reasons expressed below, all three assignments of error lack merit. The trial court's decision to overrule the objections to the magistrate's decision and to approve the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") is hereby affirmed. Statement of the Facts and Case {¶3} In July 2008, Plaintiff-Appellee Sandra Lee Miklas, nka Sandra Lee Keller, (\"Appellee\") filed a divorce complaint against Appellant. In April 2009, the trial court granted the divorce. The parties were in agreement on the division of property and the allocation of parental rights. The trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3974a3e0-b087-43a7-9e29-94c336c1dbee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2961330-2961330","title":"CourtListener opinion 2961330","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"523 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n of parental rights. The trial court appears to have complied with the parties' agreement. However, for purposes of this appeal, one matter was not fully completed at the time of the decree, a QDRO. {¶4} The decree provided Appellee would receive 50% of the marital portion of Appellant's 401(k) account and Appellant would \"obtain whatever paperwork is necessary to effectuate this award.\" 4/8/09 J.E. Appellee was required to prepare a QDRO, \"if necessary.\" 4/8/09 J.E. {¶5} In July 2014, Appellee filed Motion to Enforce Decree requesting the court order Appellant to sign the proposed QDRO. A hearing on the matter was scheduled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e86c18e3-2f0d-4135-aaac-0ab6617487ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2966935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"981 F.2d 160","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2966935 Extracted reporter citation: 981 F.2d 160. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2966935 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e86c18e3-2f0d-4135-aaac-0ab6617487ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2966935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"981 F.2d 160","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e86c18e3-2f0d-4135-aaac-0ab6617487ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2966935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"981 F.2d 160","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: summary judgment. 2 Relying on ERISA's preemption clause, the district court held that Betty's claim was preempted because it was based upon state law that related to an employee benefit plan. The district court noted further that Betty had not employed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the method ERISA provided for a divorced spouse to enforce property rights in an ERISA plan. Accordingly, the district court granted Patricia's motion for summary judgment and denied Betty's summary judgment motion. The district court also denied Patricia's motion for attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, Betty contends that because an ERISA plan a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e86c18e3-2f0d-4135-aaac-0ab6617487ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2966935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"981 F.2d 160","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ___________________________ OPINION WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Upon the death of one of its insured, Tom Pettit (Tom), Metropoli- tan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) sought to pay life insurance proceeds due under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) qualified plan. The designated beneficiary, Patricia Pettit (Patricia), who was Tom's widow, and Tom's former wife, Betty Pet- tit (Betty), both claimed a portion of the proceeds. Betty's claim was based on a property settlement agreement that she entered into with Tom in connection with their divorce. Faced with these competing claims, MetLife filed an in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e86c18e3-2f0d-4135-aaac-0ab6617487ac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2966935-2966935","title":"CourtListener opinion 2966935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"981 F.2d 160","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: udgment. 2 Relying on ERISA's preemption clause, the district court held that Betty's claim was preempted because it was based upon state law that related to an employee benefit plan. The district court noted further that Betty had not employed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the method ERISA provided for a divorced spouse to enforce property rights in an ERISA plan. Accordingly, the district court granted Patricia's motion for summary judgment and denied Betty's summary judgment motion. The district court also denied Patricia's motion for attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, Betty contends that because an ERISA plan a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2969207 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 10 N.E.3d 1005. Docket: 49A02-1412-DR-888 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2969207 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1412-DR-888 | September 22, 2015 Page 9 of 20 [17] Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)), trans. denied; see Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden, 699 N.E.2d 301, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (observing that ERISA provides that alienation or assignment of benefits is generally prohibited under a pension plan, that there is a limited"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: marriage. [3] On October 29, 2014, the court held a final dissolution hearing at which the parties presented evidence and argument related to the value of the marital property, including the parties' vehicles, debt, the marital residence, and Husband's retirement accounts. The evidence included a valuation report prepared by Financial Evaluations, Inc., related to Husband's retirement through the Public Employees' Retirement Fund (\"PERF\"). The report stated that Husband's retirement through PERF consisted of two components, a defined benefit pension and a defined contribution annuity savings account. The report al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: l court's decree of dissolution of marriage. He raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion in ordering him to make monthly equalization payments to Angela Kendrick (\"Wife\") prior to the distribution of his pension benefits. Wife raises one issue on cross-appeal, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion in determining and distributing the marital estate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Facts and Procedural History [2] Husband and Wife were married in September 1995. On December 12, 2013, Husband filed a petition a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a8d87a8-ba44-49cc-85d4-cc9b56845fe8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2969207-2969207","title":"CourtListener opinion 2969207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1412-DR-888 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"10 N.E.3d 1005","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: cquired during the marriage that is or may be payable after the dissolution of marriage. (Emphasis added). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1412-DR-888 | September 22, 2015 Page 9 of 20 [17] Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)), trans. denied; see Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden, 699 N.E.2d 301, 304 (Ind. C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f63d73a5-c06d-4a77-a6b5-b8a9316fdf02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309","title":"CourtListener opinion 2971309","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-3672 the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2971309 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 02-3672 the district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2971309 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f63d73a5-c06d-4a77-a6b5-b8a9316fdf02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309","title":"CourtListener opinion 2971309","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-3672 the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f63d73a5-c06d-4a77-a6b5-b8a9316fdf02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2971309-2971309","title":"CourtListener opinion 2971309","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-3672 the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n currently in effect. Morrison was then presented with a letter, vacated. Nonetheless, it argued that Morrison's discharge dated May 28, 1998, from Sheriff Warren, stating: \"[i]n view was required under the Office's \"zero-tolerance policy\" for of the current Domestic Relations Order, you are removed domestic abuse.1 As evidence, the Sheriff's Office submitted from your position of Deputy Sheriff.\" At the conclusion of Morrison's July 2 charge and September 10 conviction for the hearing, the prosecutor issued a finding of just cause and Disorderly Conduct. Morrison's discharge went into effect on May 28. The arbitrator then engaged in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2973169 Extracted reporter citation: 82 F.3d 126. Docket: 05-1069 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2973169 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y of pension plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") if it meets the various requirements set forth at § 1056(d)(3), such as the specification of the names and addresses of the participants. -3- No. 05-1069 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore The facts of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Marsh, 119 F.3d 415"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Ins. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 128 (6th Cir. 1996). We find that summary judgment was not appropriate here. In 1984, Congress amended ERISA to correct what it perceived to be a bias against divorcees—particularly women—resulting from the inalienability of pension plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ian Ad Litem ) for Kavottis Moore and Kyla Moore, Minors, ) Defendant-Appellant. BEFORE: MERRITT, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Upon the death of Kevin Moore, his widow and ex- wife both submitted claims under Moore's ERISA-governed life insurance policy. This case arose when the insurance provider, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (\"MetLife\"), filed an interpleader complaint in district court to resolve the conflict. Adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the widow, Appellee Sherron Moore. Kev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed3ffef4-c3d3-4432-a534-6801d44a68bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2973169-2973169","title":"CourtListener opinion 2973169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-1069 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"82 F.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that \"[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") if it meets the various requirements set forth at § 1056(d)(3), such as the specification of the names and addresses of the participants. -3- No. 05-1069 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore The facts of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Marsh, 119 F.3d 415"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2976136 Extracted reporter citation: 358 F.3d 408. Docket: 07-5253 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2976136 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: favor of defendant William Lacy Hoge, III in this legal malpractice suit against Hoge. Plaintiffs argue that Hoge, who represented Patricia Mattingly in her divorce from her husband, Joseph M. Mattingly, was professionally negligent in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to protect Logan's right to the proceeds of Joseph's welfare benefit plan. Plaintiffs further argue, even assuming that Hoge did obtain a QDRO, that he was professionally negligent in not sending this QDRO to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the administrator of Joseph M. No. 07-5253 Mattingly v. Hoge Mattingly's welfare benefit plan. For"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Police, 490 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2007). Because plaintiffs claim that Hoge was professionally negligent in failing to secure a QDRO, we must ultimately determine whether the 1987 divorce decree constituted a qualified domestic relations order. Employee pension and welfare benefit plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ERISA generally prevents the distribution, assignment, or garnishment of the benefits owed to a plan participant. However, an exception exists for qualified domestic relations orders, which allow payment to an alternate paye"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ntly maintained through his employment at General Electric. Said beneficiary designation shall continue until the child's eighteenth (18th) birthday.\" It is undisputed that Hoge did not provide a copy of the divorce decree to either General Electric or its ERISA plan administrator, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (\"MetLife\"). Eight years later, in June of 1995, Joseph married Anita Mattingly. On March 4, 1998, Joseph Mattingly filed a GE Benefits Plan Beneficiary Designation, naming Anita as the primary beneficiary and then nine-year old Logan as one of two contingent beneficiaries, in contravention of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2329cdea-52f1-4044-8c54-ee4fefa5b0ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976136-2976136","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-5253 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"358 F.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ERISA generally prevents the distribution, assignment, or garnishment of the benefits owed to a plan participant. However, an exception exists for qualified domestic relations orders, which allow payment to an alternate payee. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1)-(3). A QDRO is an order or decree that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a participant's benefits payable under an ERISA qualified benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). We must first decide whether the divorce decree is properly categorized as a \"domestic relatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2976977 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 07-1914 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2976977 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: .1 Thus, Joseph Galenski's entitlement to pension benefits never went into effect. The plan then provides for a divorced spouse as follows: The only benefit payable in such a case would be a surviving spouse benefit [not a pension benefit] and only if [a qualified domestic relations order issued by a court] provides for the [spouse] to be considered the participant's surviving spouse for the purposes of the pre-retirement survivor annuity. Joint Appendix at 12. Ford appeals, arguing correctly that it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided that plaintiff was entitled only to a pre-retirement surviving spouse benefit inst"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ld have been eligible to begin receiving pension benefits. The district court also found that Marilyn was entitled to \"post-retirement surviving spouse benefits.\" This is also in error because Joseph never reached retirement age or eligibility to receive retirement benefits. The district court opinion gives no analysis as to how it reached this decision. Ford does not dispute that Marilyn is entitled to pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits and appealed the district court's decision. II. We review de novo a district court's disposition of an ERISA action based on the administrative record and we apply the same legal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: LICATION File Name: 08a0517n.06 Filed: August 21, 2008 No. 07-1914 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Marilyn Galenski, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Ford Motor Company Pension Plan, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) BEFORE: Merritt, Clay, and Gilman, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). Defendant, Ford Motor Company, appeals from an a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"094c5574-e2e3-4406-9985-2714b014a6d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2976977-2976977","title":"CourtListener opinion 2976977","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-1914 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: THE Ford Motor Company Pension Plan, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) BEFORE: Merritt, Clay, and Gilman, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). Defendant, Ford Motor Company, appeals from an award of summary judgment granted to plaintiff, Marilyn Galenski, the divorced wife of a former Ford employee, Joseph Galenski, who died at age 53, two years before he became eligible to receive any pension benefits under Ford's pen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2980699 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 10-6433 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2980699 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0180n.06 No. 10-6433 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION FUND, Feb 13, 2012 Plaintiff-Appellee, LEONARD GREEN, Clerk v. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED CLETA M. LEE, STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Defendant-Appellant, v. LOIS A. LEE, Defendant-Appellee. / BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge, CLAY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Cleta M. Lee appeals the d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d for the non-moving party.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). When faced with a dispute over the proper beneficiary for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), ERISA \"supplies the rule of law\" for making that determination. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 129–30 (6th Cir. 1996); see 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. That rule requires, first and foremost, that an ERISA plan administrator pay -3- No. 10-6433 benefits \"in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.\" 29 U.S.C. §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1056(d)(3), 1144(b)(7); Howell, 227 F.3d at 677. -8- No. 10-6433 In this case, by contrast, it would appear that Wayne had only one valid marriage. It seems he had no validly wed second spouse to name as a beneficiary, and he did not obtain a qualified domestic relations order altering his designation. Cleta was likely his wife, and, if so, her permission was required for Wayne's designation of Lois as his beneficiary. See § 1005(c)(2)(B). The peculiar facts of this case also explain why the district court erred in concluding it was not bound by Durden. 448 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2006). In Durden, we were required to make a pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a3049b8-790f-460a-a3d5-3becdc9f0ec0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2980699-2980699","title":"CourtListener opinion 2980699","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-6433 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: s the beneficiary of \"any benefits which may be payable from the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund as the result of [his] death.\" Wayne passed away in January 2007. The Pension Fund began paying Lois a monthly pension on February 1, 2007. Cleta applied for survivor benefits from the Pension Fund later in February 2007, attaching her 1979 marriage certificate and explaining that she and Wayne had never 1 We refer to Wayne, Cleta, and Lois Lee by their first names in order to avoid confusion arising from their shared last name. -2- No. 10-6433 divorced. The Pension Fund subsequently filed this interpleader action in the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27ead36c-5d6f-44a9-b6ac-ea0c25202042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982613","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-3226 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2982613 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 09-3226 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2982613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27ead36c-5d6f-44a9-b6ac-ea0c25202042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982613","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-3226 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27ead36c-5d6f-44a9-b6ac-ea0c25202042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982613","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-3226 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Y, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. This case originated from Belen Cuellar's long-closed divorce case. In a strange series of procedural events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors (\"GM\") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27ead36c-5d6f-44a9-b6ac-ea0c25202042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982613","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-3226 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: orce case. In a strange series of procedural events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors (\"GM\") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed and fully briefed, GM filed a notice of bankruptcy, and this appeal was held in abeyance p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27ead36c-5d6f-44a9-b6ac-ea0c25202042","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982613-2982613","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982613","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-3226 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors (\"GM\") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed and fully briefed, GM filed a notice of bankruptcy, and this appeal was held in abeyance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In March 20"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2982987 Extracted reporter citation: 716 F.3d 404. Docket: 14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2982987 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as well. Through this process, Schwartz transferred one-half interests in at least five accounts to Liggett in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Robert Schwartz and Pamela Liggett received a judgment of divorce from the Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ela Liggett received a judgment of divorce from the Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as wel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc1ed959-5eef-43af-bd95-92c2080175a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2982987-2982987","title":"CourtListener opinion 2982987","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"716 F.3d 404","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as well. Through this process, Schwartz transferred one-half interests in at least five accounts to Liggett in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6aff648-b508-483d-b3d1-6d6474461e85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315","title":"CourtListener opinion 2986315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2986315 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2986315 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6aff648-b508-483d-b3d1-6d6474461e85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315","title":"CourtListener opinion 2986315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6aff648-b508-483d-b3d1-6d6474461e85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315","title":"CourtListener opinion 2986315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his ruling creating a constructive trust. On January 26, 1988, relator was divorced from his wife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6aff648-b508-483d-b3d1-6d6474461e85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315","title":"CourtListener opinion 2986315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: g creating a constructive trust. On January 26, 1988, relator was divorced from his wife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL JERRY HUSTED is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6aff648-b508-483d-b3d1-6d6474461e85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2986315-2986315","title":"CourtListener opinion 2986315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL JERRY HUSTED is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he receives any retirement benefits under RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN that are due to SUSAN K"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 2991289 Extracted reporter citation: 132 S.W.3d 126. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2991289 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Appellant V. MARIE ANNETTE GOTTFRIED, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-11-17060 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Gottfried petitioned the trial court to clarify a final decree of divorce and qualified domestic relations order addressing the portion of Mitchell‘s retirement benefits to be paid to his ex-wife, Marie Gottfried. In two issues, Mitchell argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to clarify the final decree and order; and (2) awarding attorney‘s fees to Marie. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mitchell and Marie have married and divorced each other twice. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-11-17060 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Gottfried petitioned the trial court to clarify a final decree of divorce and qualified domestic relations order addressing the portion of Mitchell‘s retirement benefits to be paid to his ex-wife, Marie Gottfried. In two issues, Mitchell argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to clarify the final decree and order; and (2) awarding attorney‘s fees to Marie. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mitchell and Marie have married and divorced each other twice. The first marriage lasted from 1984 to 1995. Their second m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: y defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. 10 APPENDIX B: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER a. If the participant's effective retirement date is on or before January 31, 2007, 1. The alternate payee shall receive a one time single sum payment of $25,000.00 net after tax withholding; or 2. In the alternative, if the participant elects not to receive a single sum payment, or if such single sum payment is not sufficient to provide $25,000.00 net payment after tax withholding, then the alternate payee shall receive 100% of all net (after tax withhol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156769d3-41b8-4518-931d-76a05fb678f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-2991289-2991289","title":"CourtListener opinion 2991289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 S.W.3d 126","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: V. MARIE ANNETTE GOTTFRIED, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-11-17060 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Gottfried petitioned the trial court to clarify a final decree of divorce and qualified domestic relations order addressing the portion of Mitchell‘s retirement benefits to be paid to his ex-wife, Marie Gottfried. In two issues, Mitchell argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to clarify the final decree and order; and (2) awarding attorney‘s fees to Marie. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mitchell and Marie have married and divorced each other twice. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3007284 Extracted case name: FREDERICK ANDERSON v. MARILYN ANDERSON. Extracted reporter citation: 995 A.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3007284 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: m the date of judgment and $2500 toward the attorney's fees of the defendant. The court ordered that the defendant would retain her pension, with no claim to it by the plaintiff. The court lastly ordered the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant, by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $43,158.65, ‘‘due to an outstanding loan of $20,000 in order to equalize the parties' retirement accounts.'' The plaintiff filed the pre- sent appeal, challenging these financial orders. We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. ‘‘[I]n domestic relations cases . . . this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Anderson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Marilyn Anderson, and issuing certain financial orders. Specifically, the plain- tiff claims that the court erred by (1) awarding $43,158.65 from the plaintiff's retirement account to the defendant, (2) awarding alimony to the defendant, while not awarding alimony to the plaintiff, (3) awarding the defendant certain real property in Jamaica, and (4) awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are rele- vant to our review of the plaintiff's claims. In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d presently enrolled in college. As it related to the finances of the parties, the court found that the plaintiff had a retirement account with a value of $95,643.97 and that the defendant had a total of $29,326.67 in two retirement accounts and would receive pension benefits upon retirement that would pay her $516.88 per month. The court further found, in relation to the marital property distribution, that the plaintiff was the sole owner of property located at 64 Terry Place in Bridgeport and that property in St. Mary, Jamaica was owned jointly by the parties. The court then issued orders after considering the releva"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48ba6b00-8580-42dc-b0a8-4b4bf3c19352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007284-3007284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"995 A.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of judgment and $2500 toward the attorney's fees of the defendant. The court ordered that the defendant would retain her pension, with no claim to it by the plaintiff. The court lastly ordered the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant, by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $43,158.65, ‘‘due to an outstanding loan of $20,000 in order to equalize the parties' retirement accounts.'' The plaintiff filed the pre- sent appeal, challenging these financial orders. We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. ‘‘[I]n domestic relations cases . . . this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3007602 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3007602 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: that SHIRLEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement, but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order.\" ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s' youngest child, who was 16 when Shirley and Bruce divorced. The marital settlement agreement that both parties signed contained the following language in article VIII: \"BRUCE shall have the sole right, title and interest in his pension and individual retirement plans, including but not limited to past, present and future contributions, interest and principal, whether contributed by BRUCE or his employer or both and whether unvested, partially vested, or fully vested, free and clear of any and all claims of SHIRLEY. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be entered which will provide SHIRLEY with $621.00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ____________________________ OPINION ¶1 Respondent Shirley Frank, n/k/a Shirley Pearson, filed a motion to enforce the terms in a 1998 marital settlement agreement she entered into with her former husband, petitioner Bruce Frank. Shirley sought various pension benefits she claims were distributed to her per the parties' marital settlement agreement but which she did not receive when Bruce retired. The trial court denied Shirley's petition for enforcement of judgment and her motion to reconsider. She appealed. We affirm. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Petitioner Bruce Frank and respondent Shirley Frank were married in April 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab93ac7b-3353-4890-8242-d70828eaed1f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3007602-3007602","title":"CourtListener opinion 3007602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"439 U.S. 572","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: EY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement, but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order.\" ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d50bf1-bc41-46a1-b6b2-8008cd2162c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079","title":"CourtListener opinion 3009079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3009079 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3009079 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d50bf1-bc41-46a1-b6b2-8008cd2162c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079","title":"CourtListener opinion 3009079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d50bf1-bc41-46a1-b6b2-8008cd2162c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079","title":"CourtListener opinion 3009079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. FROELICH, P.J. {¶ 1} Vondelere B. White appeals pro se from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which vacated an \"Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" filed on February 10, 2015. {¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. -2- {¶ 3} The history of this case is lengthy and has been discussed by this court in several prior Opinions. Mrs. White's brief does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d50bf1-bc41-46a1-b6b2-8008cd2162c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079","title":"CourtListener opinion 3009079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief that she is dissatisfied with the terms and conditions under which her marriage ended, including her exclusion from Curtis White's General Motors pension plan. Her brief does not address directly the judgment from which she appeals. Her brief also recites many extraneous facts related to the parties' relationship. We will confine our discussion to the issues relevant to this appeal, and we will incorporate some of the procedural history set forth in our prior Opinions. Procedural History {¶ 4} Curtis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d50bf1-bc41-46a1-b6b2-8008cd2162c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3009079-3009079","title":"CourtListener opinion 3009079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. FROELICH, P.J. {¶ 1} Vondelere B. White appeals pro se from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which vacated an \"Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" filed on February 10, 2015. {¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. -2- {¶ 3} The history of this case is lengthy and has been discussed by this court in several prior Opinions. Mrs. White's brief does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3014627 Extracted reporter citation: 822 S.W.2d 427. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3014627 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tion judgment (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) on February 26, 2002. 2. The third paragraph on page five of the original judgment included the following: [Wife] shall receive 31.25% of [Husband's] GTE Pension Plan in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] attached hereto as Exhibit \"F\" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. After Wife filed a timely motion to amend, the original judgment was set aside. 4. On February 18, 2003, the court entered a new judgment (hereinafter referred to as the modified judgment). 5. In the modified judgment, the court \"struck in its entirety\" the third"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: COURT OF OZARK COUNTY Honorable Lynette B. Veenstra, Associate Circuit Judge AFFIRMED Jacqueline Klineline (Wife) appeals the dismissal of her petition in equity to divide omitted marital property. The petition alleged that Wife's marital interest in a pension plan was omitted from a 2003 judgment dissolving her marriage to Robert Klineline (Husband). The trial court determined that Wife's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We agree and affirm. Wife's verified petition to determine the division of omitted property was filed on August 28, 2013. In relevant part, the August 2013 petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: S.W.3d 593 (Mo. banc 2002), nor Lane v. Non-Teacher School Employee Retirement System of Missouri, 174 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. App. 2005), support Wife's argument. In Ochoa, the original judgment divided the pension, and the parties intended to create a QDRO that met ERISA's requirements. Ochoa, 71 S.W.3d at 595. Lane applied the general accrual rule in pension cases governed by ERISA. The usual rule in such cases is that, in an ERISA action brought by an employee, the cause of action accrues after the employee's claim for benefits has been made and formally denied. Lane, 174 S.W.3d at 637. That rule has no application in thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59b8d9c2-77cb-4f3a-b6a9-bfdae21b895a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3014627-3014627","title":"CourtListener opinion 3014627","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"822 S.W.2d 427","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ent (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) on February 26, 2002. 2. The third paragraph on page five of the original judgment included the following: [Wife] shall receive 31.25% of [Husband's] GTE Pension Plan in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] attached hereto as Exhibit \"F\" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. After Wife filed a timely motion to amend, the original judgment was set aside. 4. On February 18, 2003, the court entered a new judgment (hereinafter referred to as the modified judgment). 5. In the modified judgment, the court \"struck in its entirety\" the third"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"245bed2f-a667-4acc-b859-6dd7bd27c48b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955","title":"CourtListener opinion 3015955","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"802 S.W.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3015955 Extracted reporter citation: 802 S.W.2d 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3015955 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"245bed2f-a667-4acc-b859-6dd7bd27c48b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955","title":"CourtListener opinion 3015955","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"802 S.W.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"245bed2f-a667-4acc-b859-6dd7bd27c48b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955","title":"CourtListener opinion 3015955","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"802 S.W.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Vantage Footwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and the Court retains jurisdiction thereof. On February 7, 1990, the above language was modified, for reasons not in the record, on Ronald's motion to alter and amend the judgment. The only change of substance was the deletion of the last sentence requiring Ronald to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"245bed2f-a667-4acc-b859-6dd7bd27c48b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955","title":"CourtListener opinion 3015955","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"802 S.W.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ree of Dissolution, which reads as follows: As and for her partial share of the parties' marital property, Petitioner [Susan] is awarded Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) to be paid to her by Respondent [Ronald], as her interest in Respondent's pension and profit sharing plan with Vantage Footwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"245bed2f-a667-4acc-b859-6dd7bd27c48b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3015955-3015955","title":"CourtListener opinion 3015955","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"802 S.W.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ootwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and the Court retains jurisdiction thereof. On February 7, 1990, the above language was modified, for reasons not in the record, on Ronald's motion to alter and amend the judgment. The only change of substance was the deletion of the last sentence requiring Ronald to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3028487 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3028487 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: der, Ronald was made an alternate payee under the retirement plan, and is entitled to receive a single lump sum distribution from the plan as soon as administratively feasible after Northwest Airlines determines that the Domestic Relations Order constitutes a qualified domestic relations order and the time for administrative appeals expires. However, in March 2001, Northwest 1 The state court set aside to Denise Nelson the remaining non-marital value of the retirement plan in the sum of $4,987.00 as her non-marital property. 2 Airlines determined that the state court's Domestic Relations Order does not meet the requirements of a qualified do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 21, 2002 ____________ Before KOGER, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and FEDERMAN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ KOGER, Chief Judge. Debtor/Appellant Ronald J. Nelson was awarded an interest in his former spouse's ERISA-qualified retirement plan in the amount of approximately $71,000.00 pursuant to a divorce decree and a Domestic Relations Order. After the divorce, but prior to receiving a distribution from the retirement plan, Nelson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and asserted that the interest was either not property of his bankruptcy estate, or, alternatively, that it was exempt under eit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). 5 (d) Assignment or alienation of plan benefits (1) Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated. .... (3)(A) Paragraph (1) shall apply to the creation, assignment, or recognition of a right to any benefit payable with respect to a participant pursuant to a domestic relations order, except that paragraph (1) shall not apply if the order is determined to be a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f289e72-016c-4c4a-994f-2c4e38b90018","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3028487-3028487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3028487","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ________ Submitted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 21, 2002 ____________ Before KOGER, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and FEDERMAN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ KOGER, Chief Judge. Debtor/Appellant Ronald J. Nelson was awarded an interest in his former spouse's ERISA-qualified retirement plan in the amount of approximately $71,000.00 pursuant to a divorce decree and a Domestic Relations Order. After the divorce, but prior to receiving a distribution from the retirement plan, Nelson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and asserted that the interest was either not property of his bankruptcy estate, or, alternatively, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3031149 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3031149 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant for Northwest Airlines, obtained a divorce on September 28, 2000. The divorce decree awarded Ronald $71,089 from Denise's reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , 2003 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ BYE, Circuit Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Filed: March 7, 2003 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ BYE, Circuit Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"986c0bd4-29f3-4842-9cf2-c40a0552a003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031149-3031149","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant for Northwest Airlines, obtained a divorce on September 28, 2000. The divorce decree awarded Ronald $71,089 from Denise's reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3031868 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3031868 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed a marital settlement agreement. The agreement provided that \"to settle all obligations of the marriage,\" Mary would receive a 90 percent interest in Francis's Northwest employee benefits proceeds (plan proceeds). Also in July, the court entered a purported qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), directing the plan administrator to distribute Mary's interest in the plan proceeds directly to her. The Texas court, in the July order, retained jurisdiction to amend or reform the order as necessary to conform with plan requirements and qualify as a QDRO. In October 1995, Northwest informed Mary and Francis that the July DRO did not qualify as a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ubject to a prior federal tax lien. We disagree and reverse. I. BACKGROUND As is often the case, the sequence of events is critical. Francis Taylor (Francis) worked as a pilot for Northwest from 1966 to 1994. During his employment, Francis participated in a retirement plan, a stock plan, and a savings plan administered by Northwest under ERISA.1 Francis retired from Northwest in September 1994, at which time he filed in a Texas state court for divorce from Mary, his wife of more than thirty years. The following month, in October 1994, a tax court concluded that Francis had not filed tax returns from 1981 through 1985. On May"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: st in the plan proceeds. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (ERISA supersedes state law insofar as such law relates to ERISA-governed plans); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 850 (1997) (QDRO provisions define scope of nonparticipant spouse's community property interest in pension plans). We turn next to whether Mary became a judgment lien creditor under section 6323(a) within sufficient time to have priority over the IRS.3 An IRS lien attaches automatically on the date a penalty is assessed, 26 U.S.C. § 6322 (lien arises at time of assessment), and is enforceable as of that date against creditors except any \"purchaser,\" \"holder of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcc36da4-f309-48de-bea1-adf727b3c991","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3031868-3031868","title":"CourtListener opinion 3031868","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: often the case, the sequence of events is critical. Francis Taylor (Francis) worked as a pilot for Northwest from 1966 to 1994. During his employment, Francis participated in a retirement plan, a stock plan, and a savings plan administered by Northwest under ERISA.1 Francis retired from Northwest in September 1994, at which time he filed in a Texas state court for divorce from Mary, his wife of more than thirty years. The following month, in October 1994, a tax court concluded that Francis had not filed tax returns from 1981 through 1985. On May 1, 1995, the IRS assessed deficiencies totaling approximately $984,310 ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3035622 Extracted case name: HAMILTON v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING LINDA OPPEGAARD. Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Docket: of cases in which. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3035622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pellees. Jonathan P. Meier, Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore, Seattle, Washington, for the defendant-intervenor-appellant. OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The alphabet soup world of pension benefits has spawned a dizzying array of acronyms, like ERISA, QDRO, and QPSA, and a complex web of interrelated statutory provi- sions. In a case of first impression, our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. HAMILTON v. WAS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion 7.01 [the Pre-Retirement Surviving Spouse Annuity] . . . , then his designated Beneficiary shall receive a lump sum death benefit. . . . [A] lump sum death benefit . . . shall be paid as a result of [participant's] death if he dies before the date retirement benefits commence . . . provided, however, if the Participant is less than 55 years of age at his death, and if his surviving spouse will receive a Pre-Retirement Annuity Benefit under the terms of Section 7.01, then no lump sum death bene- fit shall be paid under this paragraph as a result of the death of the Participant. It is undisputed that Mary Hamilto"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID HAMILTON; SARAH  HAMILTON, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY PENSION No. 04-35526 PLAN; PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND; WESTERN  D.C. No. CV-03-02438-TSZ WASHINGTON U.A. SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION TRUST, Defendants-Appellants, MARY HAMILTON, Defendant-intervenor- Appellant.  137 138 HAMILTON v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING LINDA OPPEGAARD, guardian of  Sarah Hamilton, Plaintiff, and DAVID HAMILTON; SARAH"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f188607-998e-47b4-80af-7e5cfab56ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3035622-3035622","title":"CourtListener opinion 3035622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of cases in which","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: iffs-appellees. Jonathan P. Meier, Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore, Seattle, Washington, for the defendant-intervenor-appellant. OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The alphabet soup world of pension benefits has spawned a dizzying array of acronyms, like ERISA, QDRO, and QPSA, and a complex web of interrelated statutory provi- sions. In a case of first impression, our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. HAMILTON"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3036604 Extracted reporter citation: 346 F.3d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3036604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , 834 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing de novo challenges to subject matter jurisdiction). Specifically, the lawsuit involved a plan fiduciary seeking to enforce plan terms and ERISA provisions regarding the segregation of plan funds while a former spouse secures a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)- (H);1 Hogan v. Raytheon Co., 302 F.3d 845, 857 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing 18- month period under ERISA to secure QDRO). We also disagree with appellants' suggestion that Schlaht was not a proper party to the lawsuit. See Bombardier Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, 354 F.3d 348,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ____ PER CURIAM. Todd Roth and Mitchell Schlaht appeal the district court's adverse partial grant of summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by the North American Coal Corporation (NACCO)'s Retirement Savings Plan--an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan--and NACCO, the Plan's administrator. The suit arose when NACCO mistakenly overpaid monies from a retirement savings account to Roth, who then endorsed the disbursement check over to Schlaht. Schlaht and Roth refused to return the overpaid benefits, and NACCO brought suit. The district court designated its order as appealable under Federal Rule of Ci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s to whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment, see United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 947, 950 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard of review), there were no material facts in dispute: the record showed that as of July 28, 2003, 65% of Roth's 401(k) monies belonged to his former wife, a fact confirmed by a QDRO received well within the eighteen-month period for the former wife to secure one; that Roth knew he was not entitled to the monies at issue and so informed 1 The Plan referenced the Internal Revenue Code provision on QDROs, but it is nearly identical to the ERISA provision. -2- NACCO befor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cea072-2633-41d4-bb59-a3cf79194dd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036604-3036604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"346 F.3d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Cir. 2003) (reviewing de novo challenges to subject matter jurisdiction). Specifically, the lawsuit involved a plan fiduciary seeking to enforce plan terms and ERISA provisions regarding the segregation of plan funds while a former spouse secures a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)- (H);1 Hogan v. Raytheon Co., 302 F.3d 845, 857 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing 18- month period under ERISA to secure QDRO). We also disagree with appellants' suggestion that Schlaht was not a proper party to the lawsuit. See Bombardier Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, 354 F.3d 348,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3036704 Extracted case name: UNITED STATES v. NOVAK. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3036704 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sion prevents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them.\" Id. at 376. And it notes that those social-policy objectives \"sometimes take[ ] precedence over the desire to do equity between particular parties.\" Id. at 376. UNITED STATES v. NOVAK 3187 qualified domestic relations order. See Guidry, 493 U.S. at 376 & n.18. ERISA contains an explicit, narrow exception to the anti alienation provision in cases of crimes against the pension plan itself. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(4)(A)(1) (noting that the anti-alienation provision in § 1056(d)(1) \"shall not apply . . . if . . . the order or requirement to pay arises . . . under a judgment of con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: es, California, for the appellant. Martin S. Bakst of Encino, California, for the appellee. OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from the district court's order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak's bene- fits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The dis- 3176 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Man- datory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ppellee. OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from the district court's order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak's bene- fits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The dis- 3176 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Man- datory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3613, constitutes a statutory exception to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80fb7906-27e4-4622-99d5-40aea918cda8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3036704-3036704","title":"CourtListener opinion 3036704","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them.\" Id. at 376. And it notes that those social-policy objectives \"sometimes take[ ] precedence over the desire to do equity between particular parties.\" Id. at 376. UNITED STATES v. NOVAK 3187 qualified domestic relations order. See Guidry, 493 U.S. at 376 & n.18. ERISA contains an explicit, narrow exception to the anti alienation provision in cases of crimes against the pension plan itself. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(4)(A)(1) (noting that the anti-alienation provision in § 1056(d)(1) \"shall not apply . . . if . . . the order or requirement to pay arises . . . under a judgment of con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4850c57c-d236-4650-90b0-006aeec4e2ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"508 U.S. 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3040014 Extracted reporter citation: 508 U.S. 324. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3040014 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4850c57c-d236-4650-90b0-006aeec4e2ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"508 U.S. 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4850c57c-d236-4650-90b0-006aeec4e2ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"508 U.S. 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: BACKGROUND Mr. and Ms. Ziemski were divorced in 2001. As part of the divorce decree, the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas (\"State Court\") awarded Ms. Ziemski forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits. The State Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing that forty percent of such retirement benefits be paid to Ms. Ziemski. 2 On November 3, 2004, the State Court entered an order modifying the Ziemskis' original division of property. The State Court required Ms. Ziemski to forfeit her forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits and redirected the payment thereof to Mr. Ziemski un"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4850c57c-d236-4650-90b0-006aeec4e2ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"508 U.S. 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ebruary 21, 2006 Filed: March 10, 2006 Before KRESSEL, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and MAHONEY, Bankruptcy Judges SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge Valerian J. Ziemski appeals the bankruptcy court's order determining that his post-petition receipt of certain military retirement benefits pursuant to a pre-petition state court order was in violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362; requiring Mr. Ziemski to turn over such military retirement benefits to the Trustee of Rosemarie Ziemski's bankruptcy estate; determining that Mr. Ziemski's violation of the automatic stay was willful; directing Mr. Ziemski to pay Ms. Ziemski's attorney"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4850c57c-d236-4650-90b0-006aeec4e2ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040014-3040014","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"508 U.S. 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: UND Mr. and Ms. Ziemski were divorced in 2001. As part of the divorce decree, the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas (\"State Court\") awarded Ms. Ziemski forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits. The State Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing that forty percent of such retirement benefits be paid to Ms. Ziemski. 2 On November 3, 2004, the State Court entered an order modifying the Ziemskis' original division of property. The State Court required Ms. Ziemski to forfeit her forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits and redirected the payment thereof to Mr. Ziemski un"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09bf4a75-9f06-4b44-a4ed-401def149f46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040883","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3040883 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3040883 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09bf4a75-9f06-4b44-a4ed-401def149f46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040883","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09bf4a75-9f06-4b44-a4ed-401def149f46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040883","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Helen Davis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alberici Corporation and Gary Davis, holding a domestic relations order entered in connection with the Davis's divorce was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court1 concluded the domestic relations order would require Alberici to pay Helen benefits in excess of the amount in Gary's retirement account. Therefore, it violated § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii)'s prohibition against paying increased benefits and was no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09bf4a75-9f06-4b44-a4ed-401def149f46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040883","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1009 ___________ Alberici Corporation, as Plan * Administrator for Alberici Companies * Retirement Plan; * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Gary Davis, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Intervenor Plaintiff - * District of Missouri. Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Helen E. Davis, * * Defendant - Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: May 17, 2006 Filed: July 6, 2006 ___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09bf4a75-9f06-4b44-a4ed-401def149f46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3040883-3040883","title":"CourtListener opinion 3040883","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Submitted: May 17, 2006 Filed: July 6, 2006 ___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Helen Davis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alberici Corporation and Gary Davis, holding a domestic relations order entered in connection with the Davis's divorce was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court1 concluded the domestic relations order would require Alberici to pay Helen benefits in excess of the amount in Gary's retirement account. Therefore"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3044509 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3044509 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enerally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for \"qualified domestic relations orders,\" which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates \"an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under the plan,\" id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and explicitly provides that a person designated as an \"alternate payee under [such an order] shall be considered . . . a beneficiary under the plan,\" id. § 1056(d)(3)(J). For purposes of our di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to provide retirement benefits for himself and the employees of his surgical practice. He served as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act administrator and trustee for both pension plans. In 2005 he and his fifth wife were divorced. The state court on March 9, 2005 entered two distribution orders allocating to his ex-wife $64,216 of his share in one of the pension plans and $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: human breast,\" 1 can often be seen in matters of matrimony. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case, what sprang from his fifth matrimonial go round was a substantial property award to his fifth ex-wife. From that award sprang his embezzlement of the pension funds of his employees and his sentence of imprisonment for that crime. From that sentence sprang this appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to prov"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9df4264e-3de4-47ea-bf3d-dbdf894e7d9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3044509-3044509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3044509","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: sed solely on intended loss. A credit against loss based on money returned is not available for intended loss alone. It is not available because the guidelines commentary concerning the credit requires that the money be returned 3 Although benefits under ERISA plans generally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for \"qualified domestic relations orders,\" which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates \"an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3047355 Extracted case name: UNITED STATES v. NOVAK. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: of district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3047355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (QDROs), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B), included probate orders. Petitioner argued that reading \"domestic relations\" to cover probate matters was both textually permissible and consistent with legislative intent, but we held that we were required to construe the QDRO exception narrowly: We are bound by the specific use of the term \"do- mestic relations\" and the notable failure to include the term \"probate\" in section 1056(d). If Congress had intended to create an exception to the prohibition on alienation that would permit a deceased spouse to bequeath her purported interests in a surviving employee's pension be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ation of these two important policies, we conclude that crimi- nal restitution orders can be enforced by garnishing retirement funds, but with the funds only payable when the defendant has a current, unilateral right to receive payments under the terms of the retirement plan. I. From 1995 to 1999, Raymond Novak and his former wife, Norma Ortega Nance, engaged in a scheme to steal telephone equipment from the Nestlé Food Company, resell the equip- ment, and pocket the proceeds. Nance, a Nestlé employee, had access to the equipment, which she then passed along to Novak to sell. The scheme cost Nestlé over $3.3 million. Unsurp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: TES v. NOVAK titution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, governing the payment of restitution to crime vic- tims, and the other, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461,1 regulating private pension plans. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that \"[i]t is essential that the criminal justice system recognize the impact that crime has on the victim, and, to the extent possi- ble, ensure that [the] offender be held accountable to repay these costs.\" S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18 (1995). ERISA is meant to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c67540d5-504a-4654-beb4-8653633b3c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3047355-3047355","title":"CourtListener opinion 3047355","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of district","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: es — one, the Mandatory Victims Res- 1958 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK titution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, governing the payment of restitution to crime vic- tims, and the other, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461,1 regulating private pension plans. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that \"[i]t is essential that the criminal justice system recognize the impact that crime has on the victim, and, to the extent possi- ble, ensure that [the] offender be held accountable to repay these costs.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3048874 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3048874 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r legal process for the debts of any Player or beneficiary, except pursuant to (a) a qualified domestic relations order under [§] 414(p) of the [Tax] Code, (b) a domestic relations order entered before January 1, 1985 that the Retirement Board treats as a qualified domestic relations order, or (c) an exception required under [§] 401(a)(13) of the [Tax] Code. The Plan also gave the Retirement Board, as the \"named fiduciary\" of the Plan as defined by ERISA, \"full and absolute discretion, authority and power to interpret, control, implement, and manage the Plan,\" including the power to \"[d]efine the terms of the Plan [and] construe the Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aw, LLC, lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Consol. Counter Claimant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Cross Claimant -lConsol. Cross Defendant - Appellant, versus THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Plaintiff - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Counter Defendant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Appellee, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllConsol. Plaintiff, BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, lllllllllllllllllll"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reached by creditors through legal process. 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turn"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ffcde17e-a8a1-4621-ac65-88f6f43448f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3048874-3048874","title":"CourtListener opinion 3048874","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turner and Woodson stopped paying the Ward Firm t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3053294 Extracted case name: CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3053294 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lues of the marital portion of the pensions divided.\" In 1997, after his divorce from Janis had been finalized, Lupe married Judy Carmona (nee Walkington), his ninth and final spouse. He petitioned the family court for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") revoking Janis's desig- nation as the survivor beneficiary of the IATSE and Hilton pensions and substituting Judy, his new wife. Lupe died in 1999. Judy survived him, as did Janis. The day after Lupe's death, the family court concluded that Janis had waived her right to Lupe's pension plan benefits by the divorce decree's allocation of property and that J"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  13083 13084 CARMONA v. CARMONA JA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: INTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  13083 13084 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA, a.k.a. JANIS  KESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-15938 v. D.C. No. JUDY CARMONA, Successor  CV-04-01310-KJD/ Representative of Lupe N. RJJ Carmo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9a1a278a-0e15-490d-84ff-9ec201277476","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3053294-3053294","title":"CourtListener opinion 3053294","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s Vegas, Nevada, for defendant/appellee Hilton Hotels Corporation, Retirement Plan. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to once again navigate the complex statutory scheme set out in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and to answer an open question in this Circuit: whether or not a participant to an ERISA regu- lated Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (\"QJSA\") plan may change the surviving spouse beneficiary after the partici- pant has retired and the annuity has become payable. The conflict here arises between t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3054300 Extracted case name: OWENS v. AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS PENSION TRUST COUNSEL. Extracted reporter citation: 778 P.2d 1022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3054300 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rcent interest in the pen- sion benefits being paid to Phillip by Automotive Machinist Pension Trust (\"Automotive Trust\" or \"Trust\"). Automotive Trust declined to implement the Order on the ground that it was not a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under § 1056 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). Specifically, the Trust argued (1) that the Order did not relate to \"marital property rights\" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(I); and (2) that Norma was not an \"Alter- nate Payee\" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K) because she did not qualify as an \"other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd vehi- cles. The Owens' jointly acquired funds were held in various financial institutions, and some of these funds were held in joint bank accounts. Additionally, during their relationship, Phillip, because of his employment, acquired interest in vari- ous retirement accounts. Norma's formal education ended after the ninth grade. Financially, Norma contributed little or nothing to the house- hold. Instead, Phillip provided the main financial support for the family. Except for brief periods during which she worked for minimum wages, Norma, a homemaker, devoted her time to caring for her husband and raising their two sons. Phil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMA B. OWENS,  Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-35253 v.  D.C. No. CV-06-00943-TSZ AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS PENSION TRUST, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 6, 2008—Seattle, Washington Filed January 12, 2009 Before: Harry Pregerson, William C. Canby, Jr. and John T. Noonan, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca450a85-3aed-48d5-af0c-d225752e836a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3054300-3054300","title":"CourtListener opinion 3054300","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"778 P.2d 1022","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: omotive Machinist Pension Trust (\"Automotive Trust\" or \"Trust\"). Automotive Trust declined to implement the Order on the ground that it was not a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under § 1056 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). Specifically, the Trust argued (1) that the Order did not relate to \"marital property rights\" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(I); and (2) that Norma was not an \"Alter- nate Payee\" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K) because she did not qualify as an \"other dependent.\"1 We agree with the Washington Federal District Court th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3065259 Extracted case name: ANDERSON v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS COUNSEL. Extracted reporter citation: 458 F.3d 955. Docket: No. 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3065259 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: disability, resulting in a lower benefit. Anderson claims also that if the Trustees appropriately determined the date of his disability, then the 1999 amendment violates ERISA's anti- cutback rule. Finally, Anderson claims the Trustees improp- erly applied a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), allocating half of his pre-divorce disability bene- fits to his ex-wife. We affirm. I BACKGROUND For much of his life, Anderson worked as a mechanic. In July 1996, Anderson suffered an on-the-job knee injury that required surgery. In December 2006, Anderson was diag- nosed with osteoarthritis. In addition to his bad knee, Ander- son suffers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: its only for periods when the employee actually works. However, before the Plan was amended in 1999, employees were covered by the 1995 ver- sion of the Plan (\"1995 Plan\"). Under the 1995 Plan, if an employee became disabled, [t]he amount of such Disability Retirement Benefit shall be equal to 100% of the amount of Age Retire- ment Benefit to which the Participant would be enti- tled at his Normal Retirement Age, calculated as if he remained in Covered Employment continuously from the onset of his total and permanent disability until his Normal Retirement Age, except that with respect to a Participant whose Disability Ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE W. ANDERSON,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN No. 07-15532 ILLINOIS PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in its capacity as  D.C. No. CV-05-01377-DGC Administrator of the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois OPINION Pension Plan; SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Ar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb84979e-1d31-4062-a714-70f4061ed62d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3065259-3065259","title":"CourtListener opinion 3065259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"No. 97","extracted_reporter_citation":"458 F.3d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: inois Pension Fund Board of Trustees (\"the Trustees\") ANDERSON v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS 15643 did not abuse their discretion in partially denying his claim for disability benefits pursuant to a plan maintained under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). In the past, the Plan specified one way to calculate disability bene- fits. Before Anderson applied for benefits, the Plan was amended to change the formula for calculating benefits depending on the date the employee became disabled. Ander- son claims the Trustees improperly determined the date of his disability, resulting in a lower benefit. Anderson cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6df25aa-99ae-4168-8396-1ff4e4c12425","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767","title":"CourtListener opinion 3066767","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3066767 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3066767 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6df25aa-99ae-4168-8396-1ff4e4c12425","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767","title":"CourtListener opinion 3066767","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6df25aa-99ae-4168-8396-1ff4e4c12425","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767","title":"CourtListener opinion 3066767","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: de a false statement for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as 33 U.S.C. § 931 requires; and 26 U.S.C. § 414 prescribes the Internal Revenue Code's requirements for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and Davis has not suggested that a QDRO is somehow at issue here. Thus, any claims based on those statutes were properly dismissed. 3 Given the legal failings of Davis's complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without providing leave to am"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6df25aa-99ae-4168-8396-1ff4e4c12425","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3066767-3066767","title":"CourtListener opinion 3066767","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: .C. § 3729 requires, or made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as 33 U.S.C. § 931 requires; and 26 U.S.C. § 414 prescribes the Internal Revenue Code's requirements for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and Davis has not suggested that a QDRO is somehow at issue here. Thus, any claims based on those statutes were properly dismissed. 3 Given the legal failings of Davis's complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without providing leave"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f19510ca-3975-4964-8b3a-3850a0c47601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111","title":"CourtListener opinion 3074111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3074111 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 746. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3074111 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f19510ca-3975-4964-8b3a-3850a0c47601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111","title":"CourtListener opinion 3074111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f19510ca-3975-4964-8b3a-3850a0c47601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111","title":"CourtListener opinion 3074111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ot give its clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f19510ca-3975-4964-8b3a-3850a0c47601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111","title":"CourtListener opinion 3074111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: doff retired in 1996 as an E-7 with twenty years of service. Orndoff and Italian remarried but divorced again in March 2005 and a new divorce decree was entered. At that time, the trial court \"confirmed\" Italian's entitlement to 22.5% of Orndoff's military retirement benefits as set forth on page 11 of the 1988 divorce decree and ordered Orndoff to \"resume payments starting March 2005.\" In December 2005, a hearing took place on Italian's motion to enforce payment of her share of Orndoff's military retirement benefits. The trial court ordered Orndoff to pay Italian the monthly amount of $111.71 in addition to $100 until the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f19510ca-3975-4964-8b3a-3850a0c47601","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3074111-3074111","title":"CourtListener opinion 3074111","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"352 S.W.3d 746","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3081412 Extracted reporter citation: 161 S.W.3d 217. Docket: 12-10-00384-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3081412 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ced in 1988. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be \"a qualified domestic relations order\" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as \"a qualified domestic relations order\" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tends that the trial court erred in denying her petition for bill of review. We affirm. BACKGROUND Carol and Steven (Steve) Dixon divorced in 1988. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be \"a qualified domestic relations order\" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as \"a qualified domestic relations order\" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pted as \"a qualified domestic relations order\" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to the pension fund. On June 13, 2006, the fund sent notice to Steve that it would begin withholding $476.19 from his retirement if he did not object. Steve notified the fund on August 1, 2006, that he did object. Steve filed a \"Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Domestic Relations Order.\" The trial court heard the motion on August 13, 2007. Carol appeared pro se. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a029f9aa-d50b-43d0-a773-2ff5fa9799ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3081412-3081412","title":"CourtListener opinion 3081412","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-10-00384-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 8. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be \"a qualified domestic relations order\" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as \"a qualified domestic relations order\" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3086398 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 05-12-01576-CV V. Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3086398 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: llin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-52873-98 OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Fillmore Donald Beshears (Donald) 1 filed a motion to vacate or, alternatively, modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed by the trial court following his divorce from Judith Karen Beshears (Judith) on the ground the QDRO did not comport with the divorce decree. During trial, Judith orally requested the trial court remove a provision from the QDRO that required her benefit to be calculated as of November 8, 2001, the date the divorce proceedings were heard by the t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rder. 1 Because the parties have the same surname, we refer to them by their first names for clarity. Background Judith and Donald were married on July 20, 1977. On June 12, 1978, Donald began working for Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) and participated in a retirement plan offered by Merck. In October 1998, Judith filed for divorce. On November 8, 2001, the trial court heard evidence pertaining to the divorce. On February 5, 2002, the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce finding \"the parties have reached an agreement as to a proposed division of the marital estate,\" the agreement was a just and right division of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ify the 2002 QDRO, on the ground it did not comport with the terms of the decree. Donald specifically complained that, pursuant to section 205 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001–1461 (West 2008, 2009, & Supp. 2013) (ERISA), there are two types of survivor annuities, a Qualified Preretirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) and a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (QJSA). Donald asserted the award of a QJSA to Judith in the 2002 QDRO did not comport with the property division in the decree. 2 Judith filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the 2002 QDRO was a final order, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0034fe7e-32b6-4587-b320-92d22973249b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3086398-3086398","title":"CourtListener opinion 3086398","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-12-01576-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s to be divided, depends on the court's interpretation of the decree. Judith called Donald as a witness. Donald testified he retired from Merck effective January 1, 2011. The only funds he had withdrawn from his retirement accounts at Merck were from his 401(k) account. Judith testified that she and Donald have an adult disabled son. Since the divorce, Donald has filed several petitions against her and dismissed them before trial. Donald ultimately obtained a ruling from a court in Arkansas decreasing the amount of support he was paying for their son and capping the support at two years. 3 The trial court gra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ab5a5a-eb17-4d5b-a0f6-d75c11fa2fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943","title":"CourtListener opinion 3091943","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3091943 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3091943 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ab5a5a-eb17-4d5b-a0f6-d75c11fa2fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943","title":"CourtListener opinion 3091943","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ab5a5a-eb17-4d5b-a0f6-d75c11fa2fed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3091943-3091943","title":"CourtListener opinion 3091943","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: developed between the parties concerning the amount of appellant's military retirement that appellee was entitled to receive. On October 4, 2013, the trial court signed a default judgment in appellant's favor. The court set aside an April 2013 clarifying domestic relations order, awarded appellant $2,493.75 in attorney's fees and expenses, and taxed costs against appellee. On December 30, 2013, pursuant to a motion filed by appellee earlier that month, the trial court signed an order vacating the October 4 default judgment. The court reinstated the clarifying domestic relations order but did not purport to render a final dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3092981 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 811 S.W.2d 542. Docket: equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3092981 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 (1) ERISA Issues Were Not Preserved for Our Review Diane contends that, because there was no qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in this case, the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) applies; that, under its provisions, she is the proper beneficiary of R.V.‘s savings plan; and that the trial court erred in awarding half of it to Cindy. The issue, however, was not raised below and, thus, is not before us. A party may raise a point of error regardin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: or the amount of $69,594.06. Diane appeals, contending that federal law applies, passing the plan‘s corpus to R.V.‘s estate and that the unambiguous language of the divorce decree awards the corpus to R.V. We affirm the trial court‘s decision because: (1) ERISA issues were not preserved for our review, and (2) the decree left the corpus undivided. 1 The decree‘s payment provisions reference both yearly and monthly payments from the plan. The parties dispute the significance of this discrepancy, but it is irrelevant to the issue of the plan‘s corpus. 2 The plan is referred to in the decree as the ―Champion Savi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 (1) ERISA Issues Were Not Preserved for Our Review Diane contends that, because there was no qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in this case, the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) applies; that, under its provisions, she is the proper beneficiary of R.V.‘s savings plan; and that the trial court erred in awarding half of it to Cindy. The issue, however, was not raised below and, thus, is not before us. A party may raise a point of error regardin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5ce91d99-9bf4-4ae0-8014-fa46a8df2506","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3092981-3092981","title":"CourtListener opinion 3092981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"811 S.W.2d 542","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: trial court of jurisdiction. Rather, ERISA would merely alter the law that the court would apply to the case. Had ERISA‘s 3 applicability been raised before the trial court, the resulting issue would concern a potential conflict between the Texas law of community property and the federal law of beneficiaries, assignment, and alienation under ERISA.4 But Diane‘s failure to assert ERISA at trial waives the argument, and ERISA issues with respect to the distribution of the savings plan funds were not preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). (2) The Decree Left the Corpus Undivided The trial court found that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3099143 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of months the member has served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3099143 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ervice on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree divided the parties' community property including Stanley's military retirement benefits. At the time of divorce, Stanley was a Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) and had served 247 months in the United States Air Force during marriage. After the divorce, Stanley continued on active duty and retired on August 1, 2007, with a total of 28 years of service (336 months). His total monthly retired pay is $3293. When Stanley retired, he was notified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ' STANLEY FREEMAN, SR., No. 08-10-00202-CV ' Appellant, Appeal from ' v. 285th District Court ' SUMIKO A. FREEMAN, of Bexar County, Texas ' Appellee. ' (TC # 98-CI-13915) OPINION Stanley Freeman appeals from a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) entered in clarification of a prior divorce decree. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. FACTUAL SUMMARY Stanley Freeman entered active duty military service on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree div"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: e retired pay due to cost of all increases in the United States Air Force disposable retired pay due to cost of living or other reasons, if, as, and when received. The decree also ordered Stanley to designate Sumiko as the former spouse beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The cost of the Survivor Benefit Plan is to be paid by SUMIKO FREEMAN. SUMIKO FREEMAN is ORDERED TO set up an allotment from her portion of the military retirement to be paid to STANLEY FREEMAN on the 1st day of the 1st month that STANLEY FREEMAN notifies her that he has retired. Although Stanley did not notify Sumiko of his retirement, D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c33a00bc-62aa-4374-9993-1178a19007c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099143-3099143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099143","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Stanley Freeman entered active duty military service on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree divided the parties' community property including Stanley's military retirement benefits. At the time of divorce, Stanley was a Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) and had served 247 months in the United States Air Force during marriage. After the divorce, Stanley continued on active duty and retired on August 1, 2007, with a total of 28 years of service (336 months). His total monthly retired pay is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db757606-ce71-4e44-bdac-ec5411150588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-09-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3099168 Extracted reporter citation: 783 S.W.2d 210. Docket: 10-09-00254-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3099168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db757606-ce71-4e44-bdac-ec5411150588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-09-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db757606-ce71-4e44-bdac-ec5411150588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-09-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00254-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE SPAHN AND RODNEY SPAHN From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 06-15572-CV MEMORANDUM OPINION Rodney Spahn appeals from the entry of a qualified domestic relations order based on an agreed final decree of divorce and of the denial of his motion for nunc pro tunc of the decree of divorce. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Katie Spahn-Northern, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the date of the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db757606-ce71-4e44-bdac-ec5411150588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3099168-3099168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3099168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-09-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: URT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00254-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE SPAHN AND RODNEY SPAHN From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 06-15572-CV MEMORANDUM OPINION Rodney Spahn appeals from the entry of a qualified domestic relations order based on an agreed final decree of divorce and of the denial of his motion for nunc pro tunc of the decree of divorce. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Katie Spahn-Northern, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the date of the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f23a7f63-bb44-4c7d-81c6-7ac901b18ea5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709","title":"CourtListener opinion 3100709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3100709 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rister. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3100709 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f23a7f63-bb44-4c7d-81c6-7ac901b18ea5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709","title":"CourtListener opinion 3100709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f23a7f63-bb44-4c7d-81c6-7ac901b18ea5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709","title":"CourtListener opinion 3100709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nse Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was erroneously overpaying Lesa and giving her \"some of [his] separate property.\"3 He asked the trial court to amend the decree to clarify \"that what [Lesa is] awarded is only the community property portion\" of his retirement benefits. The trial court denied Milton's motion to clarify and/or modify, explaining that it did not find the decree's language to be ambiguous. Milton then filed a motion for new trial, but the trial court denied that, too. Milton now brings three issues before this Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to clarify and/or modify. He"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f23a7f63-bb44-4c7d-81c6-7ac901b18ea5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709","title":"CourtListener opinion 3100709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s case from the Fourth Court of Appeals to this Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005). Milton retired from the Army in 2008, after serving 26 years. Shortly before he retired, Milton filed in the trial court a \"Motion to Clarify and/or Modify Domestic Relations Order.\" See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.006(a) (West 2006). Milton argued in his motion that the language in the divorce decree, quoted above, \"fails in that it attempts to award [to Lesa] a portion of future-earned benefits.\"2 He argued further that \"[s]aid future benefits are [his] separate property\" and may not lawfully be awarded to Lesa. He asked the trial c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f23a7f63-bb44-4c7d-81c6-7ac901b18ea5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3100709-3100709","title":"CourtListener opinion 3100709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: because of that ambiguity, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was erroneously overpaying Lesa and giving her \"some of [his] separate property.\"3 He asked the trial court to amend the decree to clarify \"that what [Lesa is] awarded is only the community property portion\" of his retirement benefits. The trial court denied Milton's motion to clarify and/or modify, explaining that it did not find the decree's language to be ambiguous. Milton then filed a motion for new trial, but the trial court denied that, too. Milton now brings three issues before this Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3101247 Extracted reporter citation: 803 S.W.2d 711. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3101247 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the proposed QDROs to Daniel's attorney, Brook Stuntebeck, but Stuntebeck would not agree to the proposed QDROs. Pursuant to Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: court's order awarding attorney's fees in favor of appellee Denise Daniel. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The final divorce decree between Thomas and Daniel was entered on September 23, 2011. During the divorce, the parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: reed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the proposed QDROs to Daniel's attorney, Brook Stuntebeck, but Stuntebeck would not agree to the proposed QDROs. Pursuant to Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55d346a2-b7c7-4c08-a7d3-b06567641f19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3101247-3101247","title":"CourtListener opinion 3101247","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"803 S.W.2d 711","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nal divorce decree between Thomas and Daniel was entered on September 23, 2011. During the divorce, the parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3105739 Extracted reporter citation: 347 S.W.3d 345. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3105739 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Price, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 2, 2014 AFFIRMED William R. Schlecht challenges the trial court's amended qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), arguing that it impermissibly modifies the parties' final divorce decree and original QDRO. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 04-13-00183-CV BACKGROUND Kimberly B. Schlecht filed a petition for divorce in 2009. Kimberly and William entered into a mediated settlement agreement, 1 which they and their attorneys signed on December 6,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ent agreement, 1 which they and their attorneys signed on December 6, 2011. The Final Decree of Divorce was signed on February 27, 2012 by the Honorable Cathy Stryker. 2 The divorce decree awarded Kimberly an \"undivided\" one-half interest in William's AT&T pension benefit plan to be paid to Kimberly \"if, as and when\" payments are made to William (paragraph 6 of property awarded to wife). The same paragraph provided that: \"The Court finds that the election currently in effect is the Fidelity Option 4 with Wife having a survivorship interest therein.\" Option 4 is not defined in the record before us. On the same day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: cognize a nonparticipant spouse's community property interest in pension plans under specific circumstances\" and that \"QDRO's, unlike domestic relation orders in general, are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision, § 1056(d)(3)(A), and ERISA's general pre-emption clause, § 1144(b)(7).\" Id. at 839, 846-47. We must therefore review the amended QDRO to determine whether it modified the substantive division of property contained in the final divorce decree. We will interpret the divorce decree and QDRO like any other judgment. Floyd v. Floyd, No. 04-04-00436-CV, 2005 WL 291493, at *2 (Tex. Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b735d3-8d17-40bb-a5af-cb079dddccf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3105739-3105739","title":"CourtListener opinion 3105739","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: n 4 with Wife having a survivorship interest therein.\" Option 4 is not defined in the record before us. On the same day the decree was signed, Judge Stryker also signed a QDRO relating to William's AT&T pension benefit plan. The QDRO assigned Kimberly, the alternate payee, a benefit of 50% of the Plan's benefit. Paragraph 6 of the QDRO further specified that: The Alternate Payee shall commence his/her portion of the benefit when and as paid to the Plan Participant. The Participant has previously elected the \"Joint and 50% Survivor Annuity with Pop-up\" option. Alternate Payee confirms her acceptance of Participant's pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"015a8835-f759-4c55-9e2f-fbd197813206","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976","title":"CourtListener opinion 3108976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"332 S.W.3d 361","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3108976 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Collier. Extracted reporter citation: 332 S.W.3d 361. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3108976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"015a8835-f759-4c55-9e2f-fbd197813206","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976","title":"CourtListener opinion 3108976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"332 S.W.3d 361","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"015a8835-f759-4c55-9e2f-fbd197813206","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976","title":"CourtListener opinion 3108976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"332 S.W.3d 361","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Walker v. Walker, No. 04-98-00537-CV, 2000 WL 374641, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 12, 2000, pet. denied) (not designated for publication). Rather than discussing the trial court's findings, Sylvia contends that the QDRO used by the trial court only splits the community interest in Salvador's retirement, including the DROP account. Even assuming Sylvia is correct, the trial court's finding that the DROP account was 100% community property affected the division of the marital estate. $300,000 EXPENDED BY SYLVIA'S SEPARATE ESTATE ON COMMUNITY ESTATE Salvador next conte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"015a8835-f759-4c55-9e2f-fbd197813206","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976","title":"CourtListener opinion 3108976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"332 S.W.3d 361","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property which the trial court was prohibited from divesting. See Shanks, 110 S.W.3d at 448. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the trial court erred in awarding Sylvia one-half of the rental proceeds, and Salvador's first issue is sustained. SALVADOR'S RETIREMENT BENEFITS Salvador raises two issues with regard to the division of retirement benefits. First, he contends that the trial court erred in awarding Sylvia a percentage of the retirement benefits using -7- 04-12-00638-CV a fraction that began on the date of marriage and ended on July 1, 2012, because the date of divorce was December 3, 2011. Second, Salvador co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"015a8835-f759-4c55-9e2f-fbd197813206","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3108976-3108976","title":"CourtListener opinion 3108976","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"332 S.W.3d 361","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n a decree of divorce, the trial court must order a just and right division of the estate of the parties. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 7.001 (West 2006). \"Trial courts can only divide community property, [because] the phrase ‘estate of the parties' encompasses the community property of a marriage, but does not reach separate property.\" Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. 2011). \"Texas law prohibits courts from divesting spouses of their separate property.\" Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 448 (Tex. 2003). -2- 04-12-00638-CV \"The trial court has wide discretion in dividing the estate of the parties and that divisio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc100179-1060-4cbd-9594-3b5f5f34cf30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3113427 Extracted reporter citation: 379 S.W.3d 267. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3113427 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc100179-1060-4cbd-9594-3b5f5f34cf30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc100179-1060-4cbd-9594-3b5f5f34cf30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of his retirement benefits in his civil service retirement \"arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%),\" which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civil service retirement \"arising out of [Joe's] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of valuation of DBP, that portion being thirty percent (30%) as of September 29, 2005,\" which also was to be more particularly defined in a QDRO. The QDRO stated that the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc100179-1060-4cbd-9594-3b5f5f34cf30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: etition, we reverse the trial court's order and remand the cause for further proceedings. BACKGROUND A final divorce decree was signed on April 18, 2006, granting Joe and Rebecca Medellin a divorce. In the divorce decree, Joe was awarded a portion of his retirement benefits in his civil service retirement \"arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%),\" which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc100179-1060-4cbd-9594-3b5f5f34cf30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113427-3113427","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113427","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: irement benefits in his civil service retirement \"arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%),\" which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civil service retirement \"arising out of [Joe's] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of valuation of DBP, that portion being thirty percent (30%) as of September 29, 2005,\" which also was to be more particularly defined in a QDRO. The QDRO stated that the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3838217-c97a-4aa8-89cc-7f89c18dccd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3113454 Extracted reporter citation: 909 S.W.2d 950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3113454 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3838217-c97a-4aa8-89cc-7f89c18dccd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3838217-c97a-4aa8-89cc-7f89c18dccd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: discharge their respective portion of the debt. In her motion, Rosita alleged that Eusebio failed to make any payment on the debt and requested the following: Petitioner prays that the Court order Respondent to deliver and or [sic] an order vacating the Qualified Domestic Relations Order a [sic] crediting Respondent against the existing debt. Petitioner requests alternatively and [sic] assignment of interest in Rosita Vejil's teacher retirement system benefitys [sic] or an equivalent sum of money to Petitioner at a date and place certain. Petitioner requests a judgment be entered against Respondent or alternatively that Respondent be o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3838217-c97a-4aa8-89cc-7f89c18dccd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: their respective portion of the debt. In her motion, Rosita alleged that Eusebio failed to make any payment on the debt and requested the following: Petitioner prays that the Court order Respondent to deliver and or [sic] an order vacating the Qualified Domestic Relations Order a [sic] crediting Respondent against the existing debt. Petitioner requests alternatively and [sic] assignment of interest in Rosita Vejil's teacher retirement system benefitys [sic] or an equivalent sum of money to Petitioner at a date and place certain. Petitioner requests a judgment be entered against Respondent or alternatively that Respondent be o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3838217-c97a-4aa8-89cc-7f89c18dccd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3113454-3113454","title":"CourtListener opinion 3113454","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"909 S.W.2d 950","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d be held in contempt for violating the clarified order is not ripe for our consideration, and his second issue is dismissed. See id. CLARIFICATION In his third issue, Eusebio contends that the trial court's clarification order substantively changes the property division in the divorce by creating new obligations. We disagree that the clarification order substantively changed the property division. Section 9.006(b) of the Texas Family Code gives the trial court the authority to \"specify more precisely the manner of effecting the property division previously made if the substantive division of property is not altered or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3115444 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3115444 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: z, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2013 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART In this post-decree divorce action, Earl Seabron challenges the trial court's clarification order and domestic relations order concerning military retirement benefits. We affirm as modified in part and reverse and remand in part. BACKGROUND Earl Seabron and Ayesha Seabron were married in 1966 and divorced in 1990. At the time of the divorce, Earl was retired from the United States Air Force and was receiving military retirement. The divorce decree provided that Ayesha was to receive 42.95% of the \"gross present"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): silent as to husband's obligations if he retired at any age other than 65; trial court was therefore authorized to enter a clarifying order); see also Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that award of \"401(k) plan in the amount of $136,000\" was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation and thus clarification was permitted). The clarification did not alter the essential proportional division of the military retirement benefits. If anything, the clarification benefited Earl because it reduced the amount of military retired pay awarded to Ayesha (42.95"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2013 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART In this post-decree divorce action, Earl Seabron challenges the trial court's clarification order and domestic relations order concerning military retirement benefits. We affirm as modified in part and reverse and remand in part. BACKGROUND Earl Seabron and Ayesha Seabron were married in 1966 and divorced in 1990. At the time of the divorce, Earl was retired from the United States Air Force and was receiving military retirement. The divorce decree provided that Ayesha was to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c9d2bcf-41b9-4027-9bab-32179dc65128","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3115444-3115444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3115444","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nse, Earl pleaded the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations (asserted two- year limitations period applied); laches and estoppel; and payment, accord, and satisfaction. He also pleaded that Ayesha was improperly attempting to change the substantive property division ordered by the court in the final decree of divorce, and that he was entitled to an offset or a credit for having paid the federal taxes due on Ayesha's share of the military retired pay. A bench trial was held in early 2012, at which Ayesha, Earl, and Pamela Greenroyd, a Certified Public Accountant, testified; Ayesha's attorney also testified as to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc7c16ec-e70b-414a-8e10-1885f1e30b2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933","title":"CourtListener opinion 3116933","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3116933 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months the member has served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3116933 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc7c16ec-e70b-414a-8e10-1885f1e30b2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933","title":"CourtListener opinion 3116933","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc7c16ec-e70b-414a-8e10-1885f1e30b2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933","title":"CourtListener opinion 3116933","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of the remand. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's order. FREEMAN I The facts underlying this appeal are accurately set forth in the prior opinion. See Freeman I, 387 S.W.3d at 773-74. The divorce decree divided Stanley's military retirement benefits and awarded Sumiko the following benefits pertinent to this appeal: All right, title and interest in and to 44% percent [sic] of the United States Air Force disposable retired pay to be paid as a result of STANLEY FREEMAN SR.'S service in the United States Air Force, at the grade and time in service that exists as to the date of the divorce…. The do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc7c16ec-e70b-414a-8e10-1885f1e30b2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933","title":"CourtListener opinion 3116933","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: an asserts that the order entered on remand erroneously awards Sumiko Freeman a 1 Although there was an initial appeal of the divorce decree on other issues, we refer to the El Paso court's opinion as Freeman I because it is the first opinion addressing the domestic relations order relating to Stanley's military retirement. The appeal addressed in Freeman I was transferred from this court to the El Paso court pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. 04-12-00541-CV percentage of his disposable retirement pay that belongs to his separate estate. Stanley also asserts that the order entered on remand c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc7c16ec-e70b-414a-8e10-1885f1e30b2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3116933-3116933","title":"CourtListener opinion 3116933","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months the member has served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: y. In Freeman I, the El Paso court noted that courts have struggled in calculating the division of military retirement benefits upon divorce, asserting: Courts have grappled throughout the years over the proper formula for apportioning the extent of the community property interest when the service member joined the military prior to marriage. Courts have also struggled with valuing the community property interest when the service member is still on active duty at the time of divorce. 387 S.W.3d at 774 (emphasis in original). The El Paso court then noted the Taggart formula \"was created to address the apportionment issue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eed5923-bc00-4aee-9c98-6aa703824d66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922","title":"CourtListener opinion 3118922","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry stating","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.2d 723","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3118922 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Extracted reporter citation: 391 S.W.2d 723. Docket: entry stating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3118922 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eed5923-bc00-4aee-9c98-6aa703824d66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922","title":"CourtListener opinion 3118922","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry stating","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.2d 723","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eed5923-bc00-4aee-9c98-6aa703824d66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922","title":"CourtListener opinion 3118922","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry stating","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.2d 723","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on to withdraw from representation, which the trial court granted on August 14, 2012. On that same day, Maldonado filed a petition in intervention, seeking recovery of attorney's fees. She then filed a \"Motion in Opposition of Entry of Proposed Decree and Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" on August 21, 2012. The trial court signed the \"Final Decree of Divorce\" on August 22, 2012, and Maldonado moved for a new trial on August 31, 2012. Both Quinn and Rosario filed motions to strike Maldonado's petition in intervention, which the trial court granted on September 19, 2012. Standing In his \"Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdict"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eed5923-bc00-4aee-9c98-6aa703824d66","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3118922-3118922","title":"CourtListener opinion 3118922","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry stating","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.2d 723","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: draw from representation, which the trial court granted on August 14, 2012. On that same day, Maldonado filed a petition in intervention, seeking recovery of attorney's fees. She then filed a \"Motion in Opposition of Entry of Proposed Decree and Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" on August 21, 2012. The trial court signed the \"Final Decree of Divorce\" on August 22, 2012, and Maldonado moved for a new trial on August 31, 2012. Both Quinn and Rosario filed motions to strike Maldonado's petition in intervention, which the trial court granted on September 19, 2012. Standing In his \"Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdict"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3121258 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 04-11-00898-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3121258 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d of or contained in the decree. TEX. FAM. CODE §§ 9.002, 9.006(a), 9.008. The court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the original division of the property. Id. § 9.008(b); see also § 9.1045(a) (providing that a \"court that renders a qualified domestic relations order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court\"). However, after its plenary power expires, a court may not alter, amend, or modify the substantive division of property in the decree. Id. § 9.007(a); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rrent child support for the couple's two children, 100% of all travel expenses, and sixty percent of private school tuition. 2 On that same date, the trial court also signed a Domestic Relations Order (Military Retirement) (\"the DRO\") dividing the military retirement benefits. In December 2009, appellee was transferred back to San Antonio, Texas, where he resided until mid-2011. On March 22, 2011, appellee filed a Petition for Modification and Clarification of Prior Order in which he asserted he was \"retiring from his position with the United States Air Force and, as a result, his income will be substantially reduced, and,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: court was without jurisdiction to do. A DRO, such as the one here, \"is a species of post-divorce enforcement order.\" Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). The purpose of a DRO is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the - 12 - 04-11-00898-CV right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. at 353-54. A trial court that renders a divorce decree generally retains the power to enforce or clarify the property division approved of or contained in the decree. TEX. FAM. CODE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a414e0-3abf-4054-8785-9250be3d4b5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3121258-3121258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3121258","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-11-00898-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: one, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 31, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellant, Susan Meyer, appeals from an order modifying appellee Mark Pistone's child support obligations and an order clarifying a Domestic Relations Order (Military Retirement). We affirm. BACKGROUND Prior to their divorce, appellant, appellee, and their two children lived in San Antonio, Texas, where appellee was stationed with the United States Air Force. Appellant and the two children went to Missouri in June 2006 to visit appellant's father. At this time, appellant and appellee knew he would soon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f9d6b8-d6c7-4674-a852-7958c064bacf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519","title":"CourtListener opinion 3122519","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 S.W.3d 506","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3122519 Extracted reporter citation: 283 S.W.3d 506. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3122519 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f9d6b8-d6c7-4674-a852-7958c064bacf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519","title":"CourtListener opinion 3122519","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 S.W.3d 506","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f9d6b8-d6c7-4674-a852-7958c064bacf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519","title":"CourtListener opinion 3122519","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 S.W.3d 506","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or attorney's fees, as well as additional conditional appellate attorney's fees should he appeal the divorce decree. The trial court stated in the letter ruling that Stacy's attorney ―shall prepare the Decree of Divorce, the Wage 4 Withholding Order, and QDRO's to reflect this ruling and shall submit all orders to the Court no later than October 23, 2009.‖ But before such a decree could be signed, Michael and Stacy entered into an agreement to the exclusion of the law firm that deleted the award of the attorney's fee judgment of $190,000 plus conditional appellate fees to Stacy from Michael, and the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f9d6b8-d6c7-4674-a852-7958c064bacf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3122519-3122519","title":"CourtListener opinion 3122519","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"283 S.W.3d 506","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: o fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to the spouse to whom support is owed.11 A spouse is personally liable for the other spouse's acts if the other spouse incurs a debt for necessaries.12 Further, all community property is subject to a liability for which both spouses are personally liable.13 A spouse's attorney's fees may be regarded as necessaries to protect his legal rights as long as he acts in 10 900 S.W.2d 108, 111–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ) (citations omitted). 11 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.501 (West 2006). 12 Id. § 3.201. 13 See id. §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3123289 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3123289 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: judgment are substituted in their place. 04-11-00700-CV At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court impermissibly deviated from the parties' mediated settlement agreement in rendering a domestic relations order. Two provisions related to military retirement benefits are in dispute—the husband's pay grade and whether the \"high-36 month retired pay\" is to be determined on the date of the husband's retirement or on the date of the mediated settlement agreement. Because we conclude the essential terms of the parties' agreement were included in the binding and irrevocable mediated settlement agreement, the trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s, 99 S.W.3d 150, 158-59 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.), in support. Otherwise, Andrew contends he would be divested of his separate property in contravention of Berry v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex. 1983), in which the court held that pension benefits accruing for services rendered after a divorce are not part of the parties' community estate subject to a just and right division. Lillian responds that if the retired pay awarded her is determined on the date the Mediation Agreement was - 10 - 04-11-00700-CV signed, as Andrew argues, it would not allow her awarded share to increase due to po"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ent dated October 3, 2012 are withdrawn, and this opinion and judgment are substituted in their place. 04-11-00700-CV At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court impermissibly deviated from the parties' mediated settlement agreement in rendering a domestic relations order. Two provisions related to military retirement benefits are in dispute—the husband's pay grade and whether the \"high-36 month retired pay\" is to be determined on the date of the husband's retirement or on the date of the mediated settlement agreement. Because we conclude the essential terms of the parties' agreement were included in the binding and irre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a17c7a2f-2039-4c7e-ac5e-205011015dc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3123289-3123289","title":"CourtListener opinion 3123289","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: na 2006, pet. denied) (same); Boyd, 67 S.W.3d at 402 (same); Cayan v. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d 161, 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (same). Unlike other settlement agreements in family law, the trial court is not required to determine if the property division is \"just and right\" before approving a mediated settlement agreement. Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618 (citing Joyner, 196 S.W.3d at 889, 891). A mediated settlement agreement must be enforced in the absence of allegations that the agreement calls for -6- 04-11-00700-CV the performance of an illegal act or that it was procured by fraud, duress, coercion, or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3127571 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. SOS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3127571 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: le Marie 04-10-00563-CV Joyner's divorce decree and attendant domestic relations order. 1 In his petition, Doug asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because it impermissibly modified the substantive division of his military retirement benefits. The trial court denied Doug's petition for bill of review. We reverse the trial court's order denying the bill of review and vacate the Amended Domestic Relations Order. BACKGROUND Doug and Janelle were divorced in October 2001. The divorce decree awarded Janelle a portion of Doug's military retirement benefits and stated that her portion would be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e construction that correctly applies the law. Id. \"[W]hether a divorce decree is ambiguous is a question of law.\" Id. B. Discussion Doug and Janelle's divorce decree provides that Janelle is entitled to \"[a] portion of [Doug]'s benefits in the military pension plan arising out of [Doug's] employment with the military, that portion being 50% of the community interest and more particularly defined in a Domestic Relations Order.\" The DRO formulated Janelle's entitlement as follows 4: 195 months The disposable monthly retired pay of an E-7 with Total Creditable 16 years, 3 months of 1/2 x Months of Military"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g) Wayne Joyner's motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our opinion and judgment of April 6, 2011, and substitute this opinion and judgment. Doug appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for bill of review to set aside an agreed amended domestic relations order in a suit to clarify his and Appellee Janelle Marie 04-10-00563-CV Joyner's divorce decree and attendant domestic relations order. 1 In his petition, Doug asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because it impermissibly modified the substantive division of his military retirement benefits. The trial court denied Doug's petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94fff468-3a1c-4a84-8b82-6a806433c516","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127571-3127571","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127571","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: Rule 11 agreement (the Agreement) 3 in which the parties agreed to the entry of an amended domestic relations order that was similar to 1 Doug died prior to this appeal. The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed in Doug's name by Stephanie Joyner, Doug's surviving spouse. Janelle argues that there is no showing that Stephanie has authority to prosecute this appeal. \"If a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment but before the case has been finally disposed of on appeal, the appeal may be perfected, and [we] will proceed to adjudicate the appeal as if all parties were alive.\" TEX. R. APP. P. 7.1(a)(1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3127913 Extracted reporter citation: 221 S.W.3d 622. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3127913 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Y TO PETITIONER (Husband): . . . All interest in Husband's Teacher Retirement benefits (TRS) except that portion awarded to wife herein. . . . PROPERTY TO RESPONDENT (Wife): . . . 35.5% of Husband's TRS (Tex. Teacher Retirement) Benefits to be divided by QDRO. No mention was made in the mediated settlement agreement of Beverly's designation as Colin's beneficiary. Because Colin was already receiving retirement payments, under Texas law, to revoke Beverly as the designated beneficiary, Colin needed to have the trial court order the change in the divorce decree. As the Texas Supreme Court has explained, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he optional retirement annuity under which, upon Colin's death, she would receive 100% of Colin's monthly retirement annuity for the rest of her life. In their mediated settlement agreement, Beverly and Colin agreed to the following with respect to Colin's retirement benefits under the Teacher Retirement System: PROPERTY TO PETITIONER (Husband): . . . All interest in Husband's Teacher Retirement benefits (TRS) except that portion awarded to wife herein. . . . PROPERTY TO RESPONDENT (Wife): . . . 35.5% of Husband's TRS (Tex. Teacher Retirement) Benefits to be divided by QDRO. No mention was made in the mediated settleme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d interest as the beneficiary of the continuing retirement annuity. Further, Colin D. Elsik, as the owner of all rights, title, and interest, including the beneficiary interest in the TRS benefits, except those which may have been awarded in any Qualified Domestic Relations Order, is authorized to complete the forms necessary to effect the revocation of beneficiary as ordered herein. Beverly objected to this provision being included in the divorce decree, arguing that the mediated settlement agreement contained no such provision. The trial court agreed with Beverly and declined to include the provision in the decree. On appeal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f260b06-c56e-45a0-ab38-6df166b19cef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3127913-3127913","title":"CourtListener opinion 3127913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"221 S.W.3d 622","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: at date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. Thus, like the mediated settlement agreement, the divorce decree did not mention anything relating to the survivor annuity. Indeed, had the trial court included Colin's proposed provision, it would have improperly signed a judgment that varied from the terms of the mediated settlement agreement. Therefore, finding no error on the part of the trial court, we affirm the judgment. Karen Angelini, Justice -6-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3130837 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hayes. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3130837 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: trustee of Jacqueline's interest. Constrained by federal legislation and binding court precedent, we are forced to affirm the trial court's order. BACKGROUND Lugene and Jacqueline were divorced in 1994. With regard to the division of Lugene's military retirement benefits, the decree provided that Jacqueline was awarded the following as her sole and separate property: As agreed between the parties, . . . all right, title and interest in and to thirty-nine and fifty-eight hundredths (39.58%) percent of the United States Army disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of LUGENE JACKSON'S service in the Uni"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: p. 2009). In In re Marriage of Hayes, at the time of the parties' divorce in 1998, the husband had served 15 -7- 04-09-00117-CV years in the military. 208 P.3d at 1048. Although the husband was not entitled to retire, the prospective military retirement pension was the most valuable asset in the marriage, making it the \"centerpiece\" of the parties' property division. Id. The parties agreed to a property settlement in which the wife was to receive a percentage interest in the husband's military retirement benefit plan. Id. The decree expressly provided, \"The Court retains jurisdiction of the division of the re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt benefits described herein so it can make any modifications to this judgment which may be necessary to accomplish the goals stated herein relating to the division of said benefits.\" Id. (emphasis added). The husband was to retain an attorney to prepare a domestic relations order to divide the benefits. Id. After the attorneys for the parties prepared competing domestic relations orders, the matter was set for a hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing, the husband had served 23 years in the military. Id. Although he was eligible to retire, he had no immediate plans to do so. Id. The husband was not disabled at the time of the h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20c61a34-f15d-4f99-b642-0377dfbd367c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3130837-3130837","title":"CourtListener opinion 3130837","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the trial court's order. DISPOSABLE RETIRED PAY In McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented state courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. In direct response to McCarty, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (\"FSPA\"), which authorized state courts to treat \"disposable retired or retainer pay\" as community property. Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 584 (1989). The federal statutes expressly defined \"disposable retired or retainer pay\" and required any amou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7731fe43-2fdb-4b59-ada2-23934fb3016e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3131422 Extracted case name: MERMANN v. TILLITSKI. MELTON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131422 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7731fe43-2fdb-4b59-ada2-23934fb3016e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7731fe43-2fdb-4b59-ada2-23934fb3016e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131422-3131422","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131422","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ve 50% of the Husband's SEP IRA[1] as of the date of this agreement and shall have her pro rata share of all investment experience, including earnings and losses. . . . Wife shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms of all paragraphs in Item 14 said QDRO to be prepared within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Agreement.[2] Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of Husband's attorney and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned Plan. 1 The parties and the trial court appear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3131465 Extracted case name: FROEHLICH v. FROEHLICH. NAHMIAS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131465 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r of half of a 401(k) retirement account, where \"[t]he divorce decree specified both how [Wife's] interest in the 401(k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO.\" 286 Ga. at 236. We held that \"transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation\" was an impermissible modification. Id. Unlike Killingsworth, the contempt order in this case does not transmute any property or compel Husband to relinquish or sell any asset awarded to him by the divorce decree. The Marriott points at issue are Wife's property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 13). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, 297 Ga. 189 (___ SE2d ___) (2015) (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him \"to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order\"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewelry that the parties had a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ontemptuous conduct.\" Smith, 293 Ga. at 565. Husband's reliance on Killingsworth is misplaced. In that case, we held that the trial court impermissibly modified the divorce decree by ordering a cash payment to the wife in lieu of the transfer of half of a 401(k) retirement account, where \"[t]he divorce decree specified both how [Wife's] interest in the 401(k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO.\" 286 Ga. at 236. We held that \"transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation\" was an impermissible"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d4baf54-f84e-498b-aec3-16f9088deeb6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131465-3131465","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131465","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: 63, 564 (748 SE2d 456) (2013). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, 297 Ga. 189 (___ SE2d ___) (2015) (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him \"to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order\"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3131568 Extracted case name: POLLARD v. POLLARD. BENHAM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131568 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by appellant Kayleen Pollard (Wife) against Brian Pollard (Husband). A bench trial was conducted, after which the final judgment and decree was entered July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to \"restore\" Husband as her sole beneficiary with survivorship rights within thirty days of the date of the order. By the time the final judgment was entered, however, Wife was precluded from changing her survivor benefits election. Whether or not she was aware"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: quires be paid to her.'\" Id. at 417. As the parties later discovered, the Navy did not require any division of the husband's retirement benefits to be paid to the wife, and the wife brought a contempt action when the husband refused to enter into an Agreed Domestic Relations Order (ADRO) granting her fifty percent of his retirement benefits. Alternatively, the wife sought an order 6 setting aside the divorce decree on the ground of mutual mistake of the parties. Id. at 417-418. The trial court found the parties had a mutual misunderstanding of the Navy's regulations relating to a former spouse's share of retirement pay, but, i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66784fe9-d672-4068-b1d9-88ba909e4c22","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3131568-3131568","title":"CourtListener opinion 3131568","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: red July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to \"restore\" Husband as her sole beneficiary wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3133284 Extracted reporter citation: 320 P.3d 1244. Docket: 41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3133284 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ore amended notices of appeal, the last being on April 20, 2013. The appeal was heard by the district court, and on April 5, 2013, it entered its decision on appeal. It affirmed all aspects of the magistrate court's purported judgment except the dates of the qualified domestic relations orders. The district court held that the orders incorrectly listed the date of the parties' divorce as June 20, 2011 (the date of the document titled \"Amended Final Decree of Divorce\") and that the correct date was January 14, 2011 (the date the magistrate 4 The document did not constitute a judgment because it did not comply with Rule 54(a) of the Idaho Rules"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a partial final judgment terminating the marriage in order to expedite the later resolution of the property distribution issues, Brinkmeyer v. Brinkmeyer, 135 Idaho 596, 599-600, 21 P.3d 918, 921-22 (2001); and the trial court may retain jurisdiction to value retirement benefits after the actual date of divorce, Hunt v. Hunt, 137 Idaho 18, 21, 43 P.3d 777, 780 (2002). 6 corporation on the building. Father argues that the insurance policy shows that it was replacement cost insurance, which is not the measure of market value. Although the magistrate court considered the amount of the insurance purchased on the building, it state"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d notices of appeal, the last being on April 20, 2013. The appeal was heard by the district court, and on April 5, 2013, it entered its decision on appeal. It affirmed all aspects of the magistrate court's purported judgment except the dates of the qualified domestic relations orders. The district court held that the orders incorrectly listed the date of the parties' divorce as June 20, 2011 (the date of the document titled \"Amended Final Decree of Divorce\") and that the correct date was January 14, 2011 (the date the magistrate 4 The document did not constitute a judgment because it did not comply with Rule 54(a) of the Idaho Rules"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e048c473-1a66-4283-9fd2-aaa718240a7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133284-3133284","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133284","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED","extracted_reporter_citation":"320 P.3d 1244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n the sum of $10,000 for attorney fees. On the same date, it also entered a document titled \"Judgment for Equalization of Property Settlement,\" which stated that it granted Mother a judgment against Father in the sum of $198,642.00 to equalize the division of community property. 2 On January 28, 2011, the court orally announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record. On April 7, 2011, the court filed a document titled \"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Divorce,\" which stated that \"[t]he attached Oral Pronouncement transcribed shall constitute the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3133447 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 761. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3133447 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: irty-two percent (32%) of the monthly pension Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 571 amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement. On June 2, 1998, Lockett petitioned the circuit court to order Edmondson to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") so that Southwestern Bell would set aside and pay benefits to her when Edmondson retired. On September 4, 1998, the circuit court ordered that a QDRO be executed. On March 2, 2011, Lockett filed a petition for citation for contempt. In the petition, she asked the court to hold Edmondson in contempt for failing to follow the divorce decree in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ockett] will be paid a sum equal to thirty-two percent (32%) of the monthly pension amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement.\" Edmondson testified at the March hearing that he receives $1500 a month in retirement benefits. He offered no other evidence that he receives a different amount. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in ordering him to pay Lockett thirty-two percent of $1500. Edmondson next argues that the court erred in finding him in contempt of court because the language of the divorce decree does not require him to personally pay Lockett. 4 Cite as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 804] PENNY EDMONDSON-LOCKETT APPELLEE HONORABLE MORGAN E. WELCH, JUDGE AFFIRMED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Edward Edmondson appeals the order from the Pulaski County Circuit Court directing him to pay Penny Edmondson-Lockett thirty-two percent of his pension benefits and finding him in contempt of court. On appeal, Edmondson argues that the circuit court erred in (1) awarding Lockett more of his pension than the parties' divorce decree provides and (2) finding him in contempt. We affirm. Edmondson and Lockett divorced in December 1988. Paragraph 10 of the divorce decree provides that [o]n the date of tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d64a6d0-2a2b-45ca-8f10-903dce1d3f3a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3133447-3133447","title":"CourtListener opinion 3133447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 761","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ercent (32%) of the monthly pension Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 571 amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement. On June 2, 1998, Lockett petitioned the circuit court to order Edmondson to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") so that Southwestern Bell would set aside and pay benefits to her when Edmondson retired. On September 4, 1998, the circuit court ordered that a QDRO be executed. On March 2, 2011, Lockett filed a petition for citation for contempt. In the petition, she asked the court to hold Edmondson in contempt for failing to follow the divorce decree in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3134661 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Scott. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3134661 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uthorized a domestic relations court order directing payment of a governmental pension benefit to a person other than the regular payee. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (1994)) would have allowed for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in this situation had James been a member of a private pension plan, ERISA is not applicable to governmental pension funds (29 U.S.C. §1003(b) (1994)). We note in passing that Illinois' new QILDRO provision, among other things, states that a QILDRO will not apply to or affect \"the payment of any survivor's benefit, death benefit, disability b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tered into [the] agreement, free of any duress or coercion and with full knowledge of each and every provision contained in [the] agreement, and the consequences thereof.\" As part of the agreement, and in exchange for her waiver of any right or claim to other retirement benefits belonging to James, it was agreed that Nancy would be \"listed as the recipient of any benefits payable upon the death of\" James from the IMRF, and that he would \"not designate any other survivors, or allocate any survivorship benefits, to anyone other than\" Nancy. Subsequently, on a date not disclosed in the record, James remarried and, contrary to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hose principles should serve as a beacon to any court charting a course through conflicting case authorities, and we believe they are particularly apt in the resolution of this case. Delores argues for a strict application of section 7–118 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/7–118 (West 1998) (definition of \"beneficiary\")), without regard to the attendant circumstances. Section 7–118(a) states that \"[d]esignations of beneficiaries shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the board and effective upon filing in the fund offices.\" 40 ILCS 5/7–118(a) (West 1998). According to Delores, since section 7–118(b)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e204ecae-2350-4538-ab56-35999e96a63d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3134661-3134661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3134661","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: efore that legislation, no specific statutory authority in Illinois authorized a domestic relations court order directing payment of a governmental pension benefit to a person other than the regular payee. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (1994)) would have allowed for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in this situation had James been a member of a private pension plan, ERISA is not applicable to governmental pension funds (29 U.S.C. §1003(b) (1994)). We note in passing that Illinois' new QILDRO provision, among other things, states that a QILD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4369d756-1aae-4d05-8471-7d22a0879ad7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.E.2d 157","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3138182 Extracted reporter citation: 660 N.E.2d 157. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3138182 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4369d756-1aae-4d05-8471-7d22a0879ad7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.E.2d 157","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4369d756-1aae-4d05-8471-7d22a0879ad7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.E.2d 157","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: when Kathleen's ex-husband received the current pension valuation, his attorney was to provide a copy for the court and forward a copy to Kathleen's attorney. The judgment of dissolution was entered in April of 1994. It stated that a supplemental order or a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was to be entered to divide the pension. Attorney Scovil last appeared as counsel of record for Kathleen in April of 1994. Scovil asserts that he spoke to Kathleen on one occasion after his April 1994 court appearance to inform her that he would no longer act as her attorney until she made arrangements to pay her outstanding bill. Scovil ulti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4369d756-1aae-4d05-8471-7d22a0879ad7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.E.2d 157","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the court: _________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Kathleen O'Brien brought this legal malpractice action against defendant Douglas Scovil alleging that he failed to secure her one-half interest in her ex-husband's pension pursuant to the judgment of dissolution of her marriage. The trial court held that Kathleen's complaint was barred under the six-year attorney malpractice statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(c) (West 2000)) and granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of attorney Scovil. We hold that the legal malpractice statute of repose commences with the last act"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4369d756-1aae-4d05-8471-7d22a0879ad7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138182-3138182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.E.2d 157","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: een's ex-husband received the current pension valuation, his attorney was to provide a copy for the court and forward a copy to Kathleen's attorney. The judgment of dissolution was entered in April of 1994. It stated that a supplemental order or a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was to be entered to divide the pension. Attorney Scovil last appeared as counsel of record for Kathleen in April of 1994. Scovil asserts that he spoke to Kathleen on one occasion after his April 1994 court appearance to inform her that he would no longer act as her attorney until she made arrangements to pay her outstanding bill. Scovil ulti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d761729-1bd0-4ffc-b617-f26b19a4fb49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-98-0690","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3138617 Docket: 4-98-0690. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3138617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d761729-1bd0-4ffc-b617-f26b19a4fb49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-98-0690","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d761729-1bd0-4ffc-b617-f26b19a4fb49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-98-0690","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 1996)). The trial court awarded Judith $17,643 as her share of the marital interest in the plan. The trial court ordered this amount to be paid to Judith under a quali­fied domes­tic rela­tions order (QDRO), effec­tive the date of dissolu­tion. We affirm. On January 12, 1998, the trial court held a hearing on property distribution issues. On August 5, 1998, the trial court entered the supple­men­tal proper­ty distri­bu­tion order. The trial court split the nonpension marital property fairly equally. The trial court awarded Judith her pension. Judith"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d761729-1bd0-4ffc-b617-f26b19a4fb49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3138617-3138617","title":"CourtListener opinion 3138617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-98-0690","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ial court held a hearing on property distribution issues. On August 5, 1998, the trial court entered the supple­men­tal proper­ty distri­bu­tion order. The trial court split the nonpension marital property fairly equally. The trial court awarded Judith her pension. Judith earns $13,036 per year working full-time as a high school secre­tary and part-time in a restau­rant. Judith has worked at the high school for 25½ years. Finally, the trial court awarded Judith $17,643 as her share of the marital interest in James' thrift plan, to be allocated accord­ing to a QDRO, effec­tive March 19, 1997. James had work"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3140057 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 5-01-0939. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140057 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion on November 9, 1989. The court ruled that the marital portion of the benefits actually paid was to be determined by multiplying the amount in \\each benefit check issued\\\" by a fraction with a numerator of 234 (the number of months John contributed to his retirement plan during the marriage) and a denominator of the total number of calendar months in which John contributed to the plan during his career. Mary would be entitled to half of this amount."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: _____________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The Ramseys married in 1969 and divorced in 1989. Pursuant to John's request, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to divide his pension upon his retirement. Neither the parties nor the court contemplated then that John would be offered an early retirement incentive package. John retired in 2000 at the age of 55, taking advantage of early retirement incentives which required that both he and his employer make one-time monetary contributions to the Teachers' Retirement System of the State o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: early retirement incentives which required that both he and his employer make one-time monetary contributions to the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois (TRS). Shortly after John's retirement, Mary filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). The trial court granted Mary's motion. John appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay to Mary a portion of his pension benefits attributable to his nonmarital monetary contributions. We reverse in part. I. BACKGROUND John Ramsey and Mary Ramsey, now known as Mary Cornell, were married in June 1969. Throughout t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40b42b58-195b-42bf-a543-5606ba82bf6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140057-3140057","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140057","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"5-01-0939","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ril 14, 1989, however, John filed a posttrial motion in which he requested that the court instead reserve jurisdiction to divide his pension upon his retirement. The court entered an order granting John's motion on November 9, 1989. The court ruled that the marital portion of the benefits actually paid was to be determined by multiplying the amount in \\each benefit check issued\\\" by a fraction with a numerator of 234 (the number of months John contributed to his retirement plan during the marriage) and a denominator of the total number of calendar months in which John contributed to the plan during his career. Mary would be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d584d6-3ea9-41fd-b925-5562812f58d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3140221 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d584d6-3ea9-41fd-b925-5562812f58d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d584d6-3ea9-41fd-b925-5562812f58d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he court: After a trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage of petitioner, Tara Menken, and respondent, George Menken, awarded maintenance and child support, and divided the marital assets. The court awarded petitioner, among other things, 60% of the retirement benefits respondent earned as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1--119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d584d6-3ea9-41fd-b925-5562812f58d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects. The parties were married on August 4, 1973. Respondent had been a member of the Rockford police department since January 1977 and participated in the Rockford Police Pension Fund. At the time of the trial, the value of respondent's pension was approximately $2,250 per month. On December 5, 2000, the trial court issued its memorandum decision awarding petitioner \\60% of [respondent's] retirement benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9d584d6-3ea9-41fd-b925-5562812f58d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140221-3140221","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1--119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vacate the order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects. The parties were married on August 4, 1973. Respondent had been a member of the Rockford police department since January 1977 and participated in the Rockford Police Pension Fund. At the time of the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"210c9873-5a41-4bc6-8a76-8f7f2fa347e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140560","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-03-0015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3140560 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 4-03-0015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140560 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"210c9873-5a41-4bc6-8a76-8f7f2fa347e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140560","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-03-0015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"210c9873-5a41-4bc6-8a76-8f7f2fa347e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140560","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-03-0015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: expenses to date, and he indicates a willingness to continue making those payments. The court ordered Charles to continue paying Meghan's educational expenses and her car insurance. Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). When fashioning the maintenance award, the trial court considered the parties' financial-affairs affidavits. Mary Anne's affidavit indicated her average monthly expenses were $4,527. Mary Anne prepared the affidavit on May 24, 2001, averaging her expenses for the prior"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"210c9873-5a41-4bc6-8a76-8f7f2fa347e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3140560-3140560","title":"CourtListener opinion 3140560","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-03-0015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: those payments. The court ordered Charles to continue paying Meghan's educational expenses and her car insurance. Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). When fashioning the maintenance award, the trial court considered the parties' financial-affairs affidavits. Mary Anne's affidavit indicated her average monthly expenses were $4,527. Mary Anne prepared the affidavit on May 24, 2001, averaging her expenses for the prior 12 months, although the parties separated on July 10, 2000, and she filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3141433 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3141433 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dence of his 1984 income as a sanction for failing to personally appear at the evidentiary hearing; (2) award petitioner, Lynn Rose Thomas, $317,753.72 in past-due support and $75,000 in attorney fees and costs; and (3) allow Lynn to recover the arrearage via qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). We conclude that the trial court calculated the arrearage incorrectly because the court abused its discretion in excluding the contested evidence. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and remand the cause for the entry of new QDROs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: buse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and remand the cause for the entry of new QDROs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e63b7e0-a0fb-4946-9689-1a1f84cf247e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3141433-3141433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3141433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e the court abused its discretion in excluding the contested evidence. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09eb0141-5fb1-4ed0-a497-dae9650f3dba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322","title":"CourtListener opinion 3143322","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3143322 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3143322 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09eb0141-5fb1-4ed0-a497-dae9650f3dba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322","title":"CourtListener opinion 3143322","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09eb0141-5fb1-4ed0-a497-dae9650f3dba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322","title":"CourtListener opinion 3143322","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09eb0141-5fb1-4ed0-a497-dae9650f3dba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322","title":"CourtListener opinion 3143322","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Y delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On February 18, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. Among the mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09eb0141-5fb1-4ed0-a497-dae9650f3dba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3143322-3143322","title":"CourtListener opinion 3143322","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffe0ab1-0acf-490a-b7a7-dd75797f4c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144570","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3144570 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Pagano. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3144570 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffe0ab1-0acf-490a-b7a7-dd75797f4c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144570","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ffe0ab1-0acf-490a-b7a7-dd75797f4c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144570-3144570","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144570","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d attorney's fees necessarily incurred ***.\" 750 ILCS 5/508(a) (West 1994). In appeal number 1-02-0081, Haddon argues that the trial court erred in quashing its citation proceedings. Haddon claims that the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its domestic relations orders. Haddon also argues that, because the citation sufficiently describes the original judgment, it acts to revive the original judgment. Weiss responds that nowhere in the judgment order or the marital settlement agreement is there a finding in favor of Haddon and against Weiss for a sum of money. She argues that a recital of a promise to pay one's at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4484ee6-2e7d-4c1a-9ace-f1493c255ff0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3144818 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jensen. Extracted reporter citation: 857 N.E.2d 332. Docket: Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3144818 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4484ee6-2e7d-4c1a-9ace-f1493c255ff0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4484ee6-2e7d-4c1a-9ace-f1493c255ff0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: beth had rolled over from her former IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson. The court also awarded Elizabeth 50% of the $327,950 in the IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson in Phillip's name, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court awarded Phillip the balance of that account. In addition, the court awarded Elizabeth assets and debt obligations totaling $145,230 and awarded Phillip assets and debts totaling $143,855. ¶ 23 The trial court reserved the issue of maintenance, denied Elizabeth's request that Phillip -4- be ordered to make a monthly contribution to the livin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4484ee6-2e7d-4c1a-9ace-f1493c255ff0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: court ordered any remaining funds or deficiency to be divided 60% to Elizabeth and 40% to Phillip. The court also ordered the couple's timeshare to be sold, with the parties to split the loss or gain from the sale equally. ¶ 22 With respect to the parties' retirement accounts, the trial court awarded Elizabeth the property from her 403(b) retirement account, valued at approximately $162,000, which contained the money Elizabeth had rolled over from her former IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson. The court also awarded Elizabeth 50% of the $327,950 in the IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson in Phillip's name"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4484ee6-2e7d-4c1a-9ace-f1493c255ff0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3144818-3144818","title":"CourtListener opinion 3144818","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 N.E.2d 332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: r that amount. The court further stated upon reconsidering \"the significant disparity in earnings and earning potential, the duration of the marriage, [Elizabeth's] contribution to [Phillip's] profession and other testimony presented,\" it found \"a fair and equitable distribution of the parties marital assets and debts require[d] a modification of the Court's prior order.\" The court amended its prior order to award Elizabeth 62% of the $327,950 Richard, Merrill & Peterson account in Phillip's name, pursuant to a QDRO. The court left all other terms of the distribution of assets and liabilities unchanged. The court's order direct"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3145522 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Radzik. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: considered a support order. Specifically, in Thomas, the trial court awarded the petitioner past-due support and attorney fees. This court considered the question whether the trial court properly allowed the petitioner to recover the support arrearage via qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs).6 We concluded that a court may enter QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage but that the assignment must be limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Id. at 227. Specifically, we stated, \"we hold that ERISA permits a trial court's entry of a QDRO to assi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 374 Filed August 8, 2011 Held An interim order requiring respondent to pay petitioner's attorney fees (Note: This syllabus was invalid where petitioner failed to establish respondent's ability to pay constitutes no part of the amount awarded, his individual retirement account was exempt from the opinion of the court any judgment for interim attorney fees, and the contempt order but has been prepared respondent employed in a good-faith effort to challenge the trial court's by the Reporter of order was vacated. Decisions for the convenience of the reader.) Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 09-D-113;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it applies to the Act, holds that the exemption does not apply to support arrearages. For example, in In re Marriage of Murphy, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1095, 1098 (2003), the court rejected the respondent's argument that certificates of deposit purchased with his pension funds could not, per section 12-1006, be ordered to be transferred to the petitioner to satisfy a child support arrearage. The court noted that section 15(d) of the Income Withholding for Support Act (Support Act) (750 ILCS 28/15(d) (West 2000) (originally codified within the Dissolution Act and which applies to withholding income to secure support orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"398d8b4c-ecc1-43ee-bf02-730986281fd5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145522-3145522","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145522","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: r QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage but that the assignment must be limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Id. at 227. Specifically, we stated, \"we hold that ERISA permits a trial court's entry of a QDRO to assign pension and other retirement benefits to a former spouse to satisfy a judgment for past-due maintenance and child support.\" (Emphasis added.) Id. In so holding, we rejected the respondent's argument that section 12-1006 of the Code prohibited the assignment, noting that, insofar as a beneficial interest"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f55385f-25eb-470f-95e3-e76de29b3bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3145599 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145599 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f55385f-25eb-470f-95e3-e76de29b3bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f55385f-25eb-470f-95e3-e76de29b3bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508, 511 (West 2008)). The petition to enforce alleged that the parties' intent in entering into the MSA was to split equally all marital assets, including \"non-qualified or retirement plans.\" Loree sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to enforce the MSA. On October 5, 2009, Loree filed a petition to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage (petition to modify and/or vacate), pursuant to section 510(b) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/510(b) (West 2008)) and section 2—1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2—1401 West 2008)). Count I alleged, inter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f55385f-25eb-470f-95e3-e76de29b3bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ner, Loree Hendry, appeals the trial court's order denying her petitions to enforce and to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage between herself and respondent, Michael Hendry, arguing that she was entitled to half of two of Michael's retirement accounts. On appeal, Loree argues that (a) the trial court erred by interpreting the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA) as denying her a share of Michael's Pacific Life deferred compensation plan; and (b) the trial court erred by failing to consider the case law on mutual and excusable mistake in denying Loree's petition to modify and/or vacate the jud"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f55385f-25eb-470f-95e3-e76de29b3bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145599-3145599","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145599","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508, 511 (West 2008)). The petition to enforce alleged that the parties' intent in entering into the MSA was to split equally all marital assets, including \"non-qualified or retirement plans.\" Loree sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to enforce the MSA. On October 5, 2009, Loree filed a petition to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage (petition to modify and/or vacate), pursuant to section 510(b) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/510(b) (West 2008)) and section 2—1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2—1401 West 2008)). Count I alleged, inter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3145702 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Schinelli. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145702 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ce now appeals. Bruce contends that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Cecily $15,000 in attorney fees for defending the first appeal; (2) finding that he had dissipated $17,919 of marital assets; and (3) entering a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" (QDRO) that improperly modified the judgment of the dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for additional proceedings. The record in this case is substantial. A great deal of evidence was presented in the trial court. Therefore, only those facts necessary to an understanding of this court's decision will be set forth below,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: te. On April 27, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on Cecily's motion. The evidence established that as of March 31, 2009, the Wachovia 401(k) account had a value of $179,830. In response to comments by the parties as to its intent in dividing the retirement accounts, the trial court explained: \"I added them all up, divided them by two. She kept hers, he kept his, except for the 401K for him, he would have to roll over money into her. So that, when they all ended up at the bottom, they had the same amount. *** -13- Nos. 2—09—0591 & 2—09—1160 cons. The Wachovia 401K was the vehicle designated to be the one"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Qualified Domestic Relations Order In its judgment of dissolution on March 16, 2007, the trial court evenly divided the parties' retirement assets. The trial court awarded each party his or her own retirement assets. The one exception was Bruce's Wachovia 401(k) account. The trial court divided that asset so that the overall division of the marital retirement assets would be equal. Specifically, the trial court's order provided: Asset Equity Bruce Cecily -12- Nos. 2—09—0591 & 2—09—1160 cons. TTX Thrift Plan $5,418 $5,418 0 Wachovia 401(k) $309,423 $156,901 $152,522 Wachovia Deferred Comp. $62,665 $62,6"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b01bde86-b333-422e-a13b-02934471c261","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3145702-3145702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3145702","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: three orders from which Bruce now appeals. Bruce contends that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Cecily $15,000 in attorney fees for defending the first appeal; (2) finding that he had dissipated $17,919 of marital assets; and (3) entering a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" (QDRO) that improperly modified the judgment of the dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for additional proceedings. The record in this case is substantial. A great deal of evidence was presented in the trial court. Therefore, only those facts necessary to an understanding of this court's decision will be set forth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3147152 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Abma. Extracted reporter citation: 720 N.E.2d 645. Docket: 1-07-0417 Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3147152 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: S. JAMIESON, ) Honorable ) Kathleen G. Kennedy, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court: Following the entry of a judgment for dissolution of marriage, respondent, Edward S. Jamieson, sought review of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the circuit court of Cook County, awarding a share of Edward's profit-sharing benefits to petitioner, Kathleen M. Jamieson. Edward contends on appeal that the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)), and is contrary to the parties' marital settlement agreement because i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t she was only entitled to \"55% of the marital estate in the Jamieson Plan as of September 30, 2005.\" The resolution of this issue involves the interplay between ERISA and state domestic relations laws. Generally, ERISA restricts the alienation of certain retirement benefits. 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(1) (2000). However, under an important exception to this principle, in a divorce or dissolution of marriage proceeding, ERISA permits a state court to enter a QDRO which recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive a portion of the participant's retirement benefits as marital property. 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(3)(A),"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: erty and the allocation of assets. Specifically relevant to this appeal, the agreement provided as follows: \"a. Name of Plan. It is intended that the Wife shall receive an interest in the Husband's benefits in the Jamieson and Associates Money Purchase Pension Trust, and the Husband shall cooperate in entering a Qualfied Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate this intent. Said [QDRO] shall include the following information and provisions: * * * iii. Description of Benefit to be Transferred to Alternate Payee. 55% of the marital portion of the total benefits accrued by the Participant under"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d68471dd-0403-44dd-8706-71ccc691483f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147152-3147152","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147152","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-07-0417 Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"720 N.E.2d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ations order (QDRO) entered by the circuit court of Cook County, awarding a share of Edward's profit-sharing benefits to petitioner, Kathleen M. Jamieson. Edward contends on appeal that the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)), and is contrary to the parties' marital settlement agreement because it grants Kathleen increased benefits not otherwise provided for under Edward's profit-sharing plan. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 1-07-0417 BACKGROUND On June 30, 2006, the circuit court entered a judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0321088e-0e97-4a6e-82c0-af94dd8590a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147828","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3147828 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3147828 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0321088e-0e97-4a6e-82c0-af94dd8590a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147828","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0321088e-0e97-4a6e-82c0-af94dd8590a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147828","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: payment in the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement account from McGraw-Hill Publishers pursuant to a -2- No. 1-10-1452 qualified domestic relations order. Lastly, respondent was awarded spousal support in the sum of $3,000 per month continuing \\until the death of either party"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0321088e-0e97-4a6e-82c0-af94dd8590a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147828","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ployed and had no income from wages or business. Pursuant to the judgment, petitioner was awarded a vacation home located in Minoqua, Wisconsin, one half of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home located in San Diego, California and six individual retirement accounts (IRAs) held in his name. Respondent was awarded one-half of the proceeds from the marital home, four IRAs held in her name, Southwestern Bell bonds, and an equalization payment in the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0321088e-0e97-4a6e-82c0-af94dd8590a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3147828-3147828","title":"CourtListener opinion 3147828","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement account from McGraw-Hill Publishers pursuant to a -2- No. 1-10-1452 qualified domestic relations order. Lastly, respondent was awarded spousal support in the sum of $3,000 per month continuing \\until the death of either party"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3148212 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kehoe. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1-11-0644. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148212 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e of the parties' separation, but the pension fund Decisions for the subsequently informed petitioner that it could pay benefits only on a convenience of the court-entered qualified Illinois domestic relations order and was not reader.) required to honor the QDRO, the trial court's refusal to grant petitioner's motion for the entry of a QILDRO and the denial of her motion for reconsideration were affirmed, since the trial court could not enter a QILDRO that was not in accordance with the binding provisions of the original QDRO, but the cause was remanded for the entry of an appropriate QILDRO based on the terms"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: regular plus permissive service that the member accumulated in the Retirement System from the time of initial membership in the Retirement System through the member's effective date of retirement. *** ‘C' equals the gross amount of *** the member's monthly retirement benefits *** -4- calculated as of the member's effective date of retirement including permissive service, upgrades purchased, and other benefit formula enhancements. *** ‘D' equals the percentage noted in Section III(A)(2) [50% per month of the marital portion of the pension].\" ¶ 11 At a postjudgment hearing on June 2, 2010, Lauretta argued that the trial cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e: This syllabus proceedings incorporated a marital settlement agreement and qualified constitutes no part of domestic relations order based on their agreement that petitioner would the opinion of the court be entitled to one-half of the value of respondent's pension from the but has been prepared police department where he was employed from the date of his by the Reporter of employment to the date of the parties' separation, but the pension fund Decisions for the subsequently informed petitioner that it could pay benefits only on a convenience of the court-entered qualified Illinois domestic relations order and was not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"72598ce2-4384-40b9-9085-1bdac35dd981","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148212-3148212","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148212","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-0644","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Husband's name in the SCHILLER PARK POLICE PENSION FUND (hereinafter referred to as ‘PLAN') or successor, shall be divided between the parties as follows: *** (v.) Marital Portion: An amount equal to the balance in the Husband's account (in the case of a defined contribution plan) and/or the amount accumulated by the Husband under the terms of the plan (in the case of a defined benefit plan) for each Plan multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of years (months) of marriage during which benefits were accumulated prior to the ‘Marital Retirement Date', aforesaid, and the denominator of which is the tot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3148325 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Winter. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148325 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: former wife. Id. The supreme court then affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. Id. at 306. In affirming the appellate court, the supreme court found the death benefits at issue were marital property subject to distribution upon dissolution, noting \"retirement benefits have long been presumed to be marital property to the extent that the beneficial interest was acquired during the marriage.\" Id. at 303. ¶ 14 The facts of Smithberg noticeably differ from those of the instant case. Smithberg concerned a death benefit that could be designated to any person the retiree desired. Id. at 293. Conversely, this case involves"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court In re Marriage of Winter, 2013 IL App (1st) 112836 Appellate Court In re MARRIAGE OF ANA L. WINTER, Petitioner-Appellant, and Caption JEROME WINTER, Respondent (Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, Intervenor-Appellee). District & No. First District, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order filed June 14, 2013 Rule 23 Order withdrawn July 12, 2013 Opinion filed July 12, 2013 Held In proceedings dissolving the parties' marriage, the trial court properly (Note: This syllabus found that the \"surviving spouse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: icago Public Schools, began receiving pension payments from the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund (Pension Fund) in 1985. The 2005 judgment of dissolution awarded the entire marital portion of this pension to Ana via a \"Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order\" (QILDRO) (40 ILCS 5/1-119 (West 2004)). ¶4 Initially, Jerome blocked Ana's receipt of any pension payments by refusing to sign a consent to the QILDRO, as required by section 1-119(m) of the QILDRO law.1 Ana, 1 Jerome began participating in the pension plan prior to the 1999 effective date of the QILDRO law. Pub. Act 90-731 (eff. July 1, 1999) (adding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3533a54-fee8-48c8-9399-361bfd6547f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148325-3148325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148325","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ict, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order filed June 14, 2013 Rule 23 Order withdrawn July 12, 2013 Opinion filed July 12, 2013 Held In proceedings dissolving the parties' marriage, the trial court properly (Note: This syllabus found that the \"surviving spouse benefit\" under respondent's disability constitutes no part of pension plan was not marital property subject to distribution to petitioner the opinion of the court upon his death, since the benefit did not belong to either spouse during but has been prepared the marriage, it was not marital property and the Pension Code excluded by the Reporter of a \"former"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cba0356-df84-4d1e-ba8e-aec16c61aaf4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148924","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3148924 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148924 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cba0356-df84-4d1e-ba8e-aec16c61aaf4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148924","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cba0356-df84-4d1e-ba8e-aec16c61aaf4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148924","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 04-1155, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This is the second appeal in this case. In the previous appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to the percentage of military-retirement benefits awarded to appellee Phyllis Arlene Beyer (\"Ms. Beyer\") in a divorce proceeding between her and appellant Eugene Albert Beyer (\"Mr. Beyer\") and rendered judgment awarding Ms. Beyer a greater percentage of the benefits. In an attempt to enforce this Court's judgment after Ms. Beyer moved the trial court to do so, the trial court entered two orders changi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cba0356-df84-4d1e-ba8e-aec16c61aaf4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148924","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: affirm the trial court's orders. BACKGROUND The record shows that Mr. Beyer and Ms. Beyer divorced in 2006 after approximately forty-three years of marriage. At the close of the divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order. The Domestic Relations Order (\"the original order\") awarded Ms. Beyer 34.5% of the military-retirement benefits accrued by Mr. Beyer due to his service in the military. Ms. Beyer appealed from the trial court's order, arguing to this Court that there was no evidence to support the percentage of retirement benefits awarded to her and that the correct pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cba0356-df84-4d1e-ba8e-aec16c61aaf4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3148924-3148924","title":"CourtListener opinion 3148924","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ntending that the trial court erred in (1) awarding a greater percentage of retirement benefits to Ms. Beyer pursuant to this Court's mandate, and (2) ordering Mr. Beyer to pay the cost of maintaining Ms. Beyer's beneficiary status under the Armed Services Survivor Benefit Plan. We will affirm the trial court's orders. BACKGROUND The record shows that Mr. Beyer and Ms. Beyer divorced in 2006 after approximately forty-three years of marriage. At the close of the divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order. The Domestic Relations Order (\"the original order\") awarde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3150147 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARYANN S. PETESICH AND JOHN A. PETESICH Upon the Petition of MARYANN S. PETESICH. Extracted reporter citation: 858 N.W.2d 402. Docket: 14-2148. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3150147 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or the child support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structured, and well-run household for the family. Finally, the court ordered John to pay $6000 toward Maryann's trial attorney fees, and gave him a $250 credit in light of Jo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: child support payment $830 monthly. The parties do not raise appellate challenges to the physical care, visitation, or custody provisions of the decree, or the child support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ld support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structured, and well-run household for the family. Finally, the court ordered John to pay $6000 toward Maryann's trial attorney fees, and gave him a $250 credit in light of Jo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e08994d-d373-446e-8066-6be58a243154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3150147-3150147","title":"CourtListener opinion 3150147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-2148","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: awarded Maryann a portion of the marital appreciation of his premarital retirement accounts. He also claims the amount and duration of the spousal support is not equitable in light of what he claims is Maryann's decision to be underemployed. He claims the property division is inequitable particularly with respect to the order that he pay a portion of the mortgage on the marital home. Finally, he asserts the court abused its discretion in awarding trial attorney fees to Maryann. Maryann defends the district court's decision and requests an award of appellate attorney fees. Having considered the claims made, we affirm the d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3151509 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hansen. Extracted reporter citation: 828 N.W.2d 109. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3151509 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f of the remaining balance as of December 31, 2010, plus any earnings on the amount, less any losses on the amount, from December 31, 2010 to the date of distribution or rollover to [wife]. . . . Each party shall receive his or her interest pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.] If [husband] is able to work continuously as a teacher and accumulate additional benefits that qualify him for the \"Rule of 90\" benefit payments, the Judgment and Decree shall be amended and the Court shall award and transfer to [wife] an additional $20,000 from [husband's] share of [his] Fidelity 3 403(b) divided account as additional property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Moran, Eagan, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.* SYLLABUS 1. Parties' written agreement to limit division of property in marriage- dissolution action to husband's \"retirement benefits\" is narrowly construed and does not * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. include a presumptive award of \"disability benefits\" unless clearly set out in the dissolution judgment. 2. A district court deprives a litigant of due process of law by modifying a marriage-dissolutio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ases on her portion of the benefits awarded . . . . Each party shall receive his or her interest pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.] In May 2011, the parties signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Judgment to Divide Public Pension Benefits.1 The QDRO provides that husband \"shall assign and [wife] is awarded any and all benefits from [husband's TRA].\" The parties agreed that: [T]he State of Minnesota [TRA] will pay benefits to [wife] as follows: [wife] is awarded fifty percent (50%) interest in [husband's] benefits determined as of December 31, 2010, deferred; [wife's] award of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8405c33-1f47-438b-8680-51f1a196cbe4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3151509-3151509","title":"CourtListener opinion 3151509","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"828 N.W.2d 109","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the parties stipulated to entry of an order amending the Judgment providing that husband would pay temporary spousal maintenance to wife of $500 per month until wife died or remarried, husband died, or 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan,\" which meets certain specificity and substantive requirements. Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp., 828 N.W.2d 109, 113-14 (Minn. 2013) (quoti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3152047 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Padgett. Extracted reporter citation: 172 Cal.App.4th 830. Docket: of issues presented on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3152047 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: g Ilunga's pension benefits \"as and for child support and support arrearage for the parties['] minor children.\" In 2011,Terry obtained a judgment against Ilunga for pendente lite child support arrearages totaling $114,592.69. Rosalyn obtained an enforceable \"qualified domestic relations order,\" or \"QDRO,\" authorizing the Plan to pay her share of the retirement benefits in 2012. 2 Terry 1 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. 2 A domestic relations order (DRO) is \"any judgment, decree, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) which—[¶] (I) relates to the provision"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ACKGROUND This appeal stems from the family court's attempt to resolve competing claims to pension benefits. Ilunga Adell (\"Ilunga\"),1 his first wife, Rosalyn Willis Ilunga (\"Rosalyn\"), and his second wife, Terry Williams-Ilunga (\"Terry\"), all stake claim to retirement benefits Ilunga earned while participating in the Producer-Writers Guild of America Pension Plan (\"the Plan\"). Rosalyn was awarded one-half of the community interest in the retirement benefits in 2000, upon the dissolution of her marriage to Ilunga. Terry obtained an interest in the retirement benefits during her subsequent dissolution proceedings in 2002, when the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Filed 11/4/15 Producer-Writers Guild of American Pension Plan v. Adell CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd98e473-fc14-4725-8984-b40d9e99e19e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152047-3152047","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152047","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of issues presented on","extracted_reporter_citation":"172 Cal.App.4th 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: resented by this appeal is whether a family law court has jurisdiction to hear an interpleader filed by a pension plan involuntarily joined to dissolution proceedings, where the plan is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). We conclude that it does, at least under the unusual circumstances presented by this procedurally anomalous case. Although ERISA grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over most civil actions brought pursuant to its provisions (29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1)), the state law interpleader filed in this case was not an independent civil action instigated by t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0798e76-21d0-4810-9303-0e25b908e154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152701","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3152701 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3152701 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0798e76-21d0-4810-9303-0e25b908e154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152701","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0798e76-21d0-4810-9303-0e25b908e154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152701","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f the parties' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (2012) et seq., by filing a qualified domestic relations order with the retirement plan administrator for each retirement account. 1 4. Under the tolling provision of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(c), the dormancy period does not run \\during any period in which the enforcement of the judgment by legal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0798e76-21d0-4810-9303-0e25b908e154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152701","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r which a district judge must release the judgment of record. Because any judgment of any court of record in this state is subject to dormancy, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(a)(1) is not limited to monetary judgments. 2. A district court's division of a party's retirement accounts in a divorce decree constitutes a judgment subject to dormancy under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403 when the division qualifies as a final determination of the parties' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0798e76-21d0-4810-9303-0e25b908e154","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3152701-3152701","title":"CourtListener opinion 3152701","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ies' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (2012) et seq., by filing a qualified domestic relations order with the retirement plan administrator for each retirement account. 1 4. Under the tolling provision of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(c), the dormancy period does not run \\during any period in which the enforcement of the judgment by legal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3153311 Extracted reporter citation: 331 N.W.2d 752. Docket: of months respondent worked. The record before this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3153311 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ment and decree contains the following provision at paragraph XX: Pension and Retirement Accounts. The Petitioner is awarded fifty percent (50%) of the Respondent's retirement benefits as of the date of the Judgment and Decree of dissolution. A separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be appended to the Judgment and Decree of Dissolution by which Petitioner shall have a separate ownership interest together with the separate responsibility of subsequent tax liability attributable to her receipt of future benefits. 2 In allocating the Respondent's retirement benefits, the court shall utilize the formula provided in Janssen vs"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: marriage was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated judgment and decree. Respondent began work at Berwald Roofing four months prior to the marriage and continued to work there throughout the marriage and until at least 2010. As part of his employment he earned retirement benefits. At the time of dissolution, respondent disclosed that he had a Roofer's Local No. 96 Annuity Plan. Sometime after April 1997, appellant became aware that respondent also had an interest in a National Roofing Industry Pension Plan (National Pension Plan). The National Pension Plan was not disclosed at the time of dissolution. The judgment and decree c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and Stoneburner, Judge.* * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION REILLY, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in the division of respondent's pension benefits pursuant to their stipulated judgment and decree. Because we determine that the plain language of the judgment and decree required the use of the Janssen formula and the district court misapplied the Janssen formula, we reverse and remand. FACTS Appellant Patricia Radziwill and respondent Michael Radziwill were married from November 6, 1989,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0844514e-0cd5-419f-a035-376676ace105","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153311-3153311","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153311","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months respondent worked. The record before this","extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: nt's motion. Between the filing of the motion for amended findings, and the denial of that motion, respondent submitted a proposed QDRO, and it was adopted and filed by the district court. The QDRO contained the following provision: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. 1 This finding appears contrary to what appellant actually argued before the district court. Alt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a33edef4-fa35-457a-b25d-c530219ce10b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153916","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322289","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3153916 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 322289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3153916 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a33edef4-fa35-457a-b25d-c530219ce10b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153916","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322289","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a33edef4-fa35-457a-b25d-c530219ce10b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3153916-3153916","title":"CourtListener opinion 3153916","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322289","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: For instance, the FOC provides services related to parenting time and custody in domestic relations matters, MCL 552.505; MCL 552.511b; MCL 552.641, investigating and issuing a report regarding child custody or parenting time, MCL 552.505(1)(g), and enforcing domestic relations orders when a written complaint is received regarding the violation of an order, MCL 552.511b. Under MCL 600.2538(1), persons who are required to make support payments through the FOC system pay a monthly charge of $3.50 for child support collection. MCL 600.2538 provides the following: (1) For services provided that are not reimbursable under the provisions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"148884ab-412c-431e-9591-af07c560d56f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154387","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3154387 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154387 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"148884ab-412c-431e-9591-af07c560d56f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154387","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"148884ab-412c-431e-9591-af07c560d56f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154387","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: agreed entry divided the parties' retirement and investment accounts which included appellant's profit sharing plan held by his former employer, Ariel Corporation. The division of this account was done via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter \\QDRO\\\"). Also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"148884ab-412c-431e-9591-af07c560d56f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154387-3154387","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154387","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: divorce filed on November 6, 2012. The agreed entry divided the parties' retirement and investment accounts which included appellant's profit sharing plan held by his former employer, Ariel Corporation. The division of this account was done via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter \\QDRO\\\"). Also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d90ddd2-1579-4d1c-83a5-37c737af2211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1378 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"68 A.3d 354","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3154621 Extracted reporter citation: 68 A.3d 354. Docket: 1378 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154621 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d90ddd2-1579-4d1c-83a5-37c737af2211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1378 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"68 A.3d 354","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d90ddd2-1579-4d1c-83a5-37c737af2211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1378 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"68 A.3d 354","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be appealed by one or both of the parties, thereby prolonging the equitable distribution proceedings. See id. Wife's counsel vehemently opposed bifurcation on the basis that (1) Wife did not have sufficient funds to pay her medical coverage; (2) there were no QDRO's; (3) IRAs and pensions had not been separated; and (4) the parties' joint real estate would be turned into tenancies in common, potentially resulting in liens on such properties if Husband was not keeping up with the mortgages. See id. at 6-7. Thus, based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declini"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d90ddd2-1579-4d1c-83a5-37c737af2211","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154621-3154621","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1378 WDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"68 A.3d 354","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2015 Jonathan L. Barnhart (\"Husband\"), pro se, appeals the July 23, 2014 Decree of divorce between Husband and Donna J. Barnhart (\"Wife\"), which incorporated the April 23, 2010 Master's Report and Recommendation regarding equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. We deny Wife's Motion to Quash the appeal, and affirm the Decree. In his prior appeal, Husband, pro se, appealed the trial court's January 11, 2012 Decree of divorce, which also adopted the April 23, 2010 Master's Report and Recommendation, as incorporated into the trial court's December 29, 2010 Opinion and Order. Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3154948 Extracted reporter citation: 77 P.3d 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154948 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ife, less $779 owed to Wife as interim support payments for which Husband was 11 in arrears; (7) Husband's deferred compensation, valued as of the date of divorce, less 12 his $5000 pre-existing separate property interest, would be divided pursuant to a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (8) to complete the equalizing process 14 following the ordered division of community assets and liabilities, Husband owed 15 Wife $2,375 within thirty days of the Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. 16 {3} Including those set forth above, the district court's findings of fact and 17 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 HANISEE, Judge. 2 {1} This appeal stems from a divorce proceeding. Husband argues that the district 3 court abused its discretion in dividing various items of community property, including 4 a retirement account derived from his employment with the State of New Mexico. We 5 conclude that there was no abuse of discretion and affirm. 6 BACKGROUND 7 {2} Frank Esparza (Husband) and Ernestine Esparza (Wife) were married on 8 November 27, 1981. Approximately twenty-eight years later, Wife filed a petition 9 seeking dissolution of the marriage. A trial was held"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 7 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page order from which 1 17 Option B consists of \"[l]ife payments with full continuation to one survivor 18 beneficiary.\" Section 10-11-117(B). Under this option, the \"retired member is paid a 19 reduced pension for life.\" Id. Upon the death of the retired member, \"the designated 20 survivor beneficiary is paid the full amount of the reduced pension until death.\" Id. 3 1 Husband appeals. Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar 2 with the background of the case, we reserve discussion of more specific facts when 3 pertinent to our leg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bfce609c-e312-47c5-a52c-be4ebb5710fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3154948-3154948","title":"CourtListener opinion 3154948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"77 P.3d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: $779 owed to Wife as interim support payments for which Husband was 11 in arrears; (7) Husband's deferred compensation, valued as of the date of divorce, less 12 his $5000 pre-existing separate property interest, would be divided pursuant to a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (8) to complete the equalizing process 14 following the ordered division of community assets and liabilities, Husband owed 15 Wife $2,375 within thirty days of the Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. 16 {3} Including those set forth above, the district court's findings of fact and 17 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3159362 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Howell. Extracted reporter citation: 490 U.S. 581. Docket: CV-15-0030-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3159362 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272, 274, 569 P.2d 214, 216 (1977). Thus, the MRP earned during the parties' marriage belonged to the community and was divisible upon dissolution of the marriage. See id. After the dissolution decree became final and the corresponding qualified domestic relations order issued, nothing more needed to occur to entitle Sandra to fifty percent of the MRP; it had already been earned. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d) (requiring payment of disposable MRP share to ex-spouse upon receipt of court order). Additionally, both parties' shares, which were subject to equal cost- of-living and other adjustments, could be precisely calculated by D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arriage of Gaddis, 191 Ariz. 467, 469–70, 957 P.2d 1010, 1012–13 (App. 1997). Courts in other jurisdictions have divided on the issue. See Mark E. Sullivan & Charles R. Raphun, Dividing Military Retired Pay: Disability Payments and the Puzzle of the Parachute Pension, 24 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law 147, 158 (2011) (\"The large majority of states allow a judge to use equitable remedies to prevent a retiree from effecting a unilateral 4 HOWELL V. HOWELL Opinion of the Court reduction of [MRP] granted to the other spouse in the settlement or divorce decree.\"). But see Mallard v. Burkart, 95 So. 3d 1264, 1271 (Miss. 2012)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: an, 116 Ariz. 272, 274, 569 P.2d 214, 216 (1977). Thus, the MRP earned during the parties' marriage belonged to the community and was divisible upon dissolution of the marriage. See id. After the dissolution decree became final and the corresponding qualified domestic relations order issued, nothing more needed to occur to entitle Sandra to fifty percent of the MRP; it had already been earned. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d) (requiring payment of disposable MRP share to ex-spouse upon receipt of court order). Additionally, both parties' shares, which were subject to equal cost- of-living and other adjustments, could be precisely calculated by D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8e5194-2c5c-4202-83be-5ac8ea4d9a6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3159362-3159362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3159362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0030-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"490 U.S. 581","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ght. 2. Vested property rights ¶19 Both parties acknowledge that Sandra obtained a vested property right in her share of MRP when the family court entered the decree in 1991. Cf. Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181, 713 P.2d 1234, 1239 (1986) (\"When the community property is divided at dissolution . . . each spouse receives an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest in the property awarded to him or her by the trial court . . . [and] a former spouse loses any interest in and control over that separate property.\"). They differ, however, on the scope of that right. John contends that Sandra has a vested right"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3161144 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSEPH VINCENT COLARUSSO AND KARYL JEAN COLARUSSO Upon the Petition of JOSEPH. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 15-0177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3161144 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge. Karyl Hughes appeals the district court's ruling denying her motion to amend the 1999 Qualified Domestic Relations Order to reflect the intent of the court's division of their marital property in their 1990 dissolution of marriage decree. AFFIRMED. Elliott R. McDonald III and Ryan F. Gerdes of McDonald, Woodward & Carlson, P.C., Davenport, for appellant. Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor, Woods & Frederick, Davenport, and Gary D. McKenrick of Cartee & McKenrick, P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: In contention here is whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), entered some nine years after Joseph and Karyl Colarusso's 1990 decree of dissolution of marriage, correctly reflects the intent of the decree's division and disposition of Joseph's retirement benefits. The decree provides that when and if Joseph begins to receive his government pension benefits, Karyl is to be paid forty percent of a fraction of the benefits. The QDRO fixes the value of Karyl's forty percent by the amount of accrued benefits as of the date of the dissolution, January 30, 1990. Joseph retired in September 2011, and his pension went"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: after Joseph and Karyl Colarusso's 1990 decree of dissolution of marriage, correctly reflects the intent of the decree's division and disposition of Joseph's retirement benefits. The decree provides that when and if Joseph begins to receive his government pension benefits, Karyl is to be paid forty percent of a fraction of the benefits. The QDRO fixes the value of Karyl's forty percent by the amount of accrued benefits as of the date of the dissolution, January 30, 1990. Joseph retired in September 2011, and his pension went into \"pay status.\" The parties then began collecting benefits pursuant to the QDRO's p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c21d05de-ed62-4321-933f-d1795e77f00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161144-3161144","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0177","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: efits to be implemented, a QDRO is entered as a court order directing the plan administrator to make certain specified payments to the ex- spouse.4 See id. 4 \"Because of certain anti-alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code, a QDRO must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce.\" Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 647-48 (citing Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768-71 (Md. 1989)). \"ERISA does not 7 A QDRO is defined in relevant part by [ERISA] as a domestic relations order \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3161942 Extracted case name: C.R.B. v. C.C. Extracted reporter citation: 989 P.2d 1281. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3161942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: et, noting that James had not yet vested but that the benefit should be \"valued upon vesting at a future hearing.\" At trial Miller testified James needed about four more years to vest and recommended that James's retirement health benefit be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The superior court divided James's PERS pension through a QDRO, but it did not allocate James's retirement health benefit even though Miller testified at some length on this issue. We therefore remand for the superior court to address this apparent oversight. 17 815 P.2d 374, 375 (Alaska 1991). 18 Id. at 376. 19 Id. at 375-76. 20 See id. (c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tirement health benefits] are earned during marriage, they are marital property.\"16 The superior court made no findings about James's non-vested but potential PERS retirement health benefit. In Thomas v. Thomas we considered how to value a spouse's non-vested pension when the spouse needed to work one of the 14 See Pfeil v. Lock, 311 P.3d 649, 653 (Alaska 2013). 15 James also argues in his appellee's brief that the superior court should not have allowed Dea to file a joint 2012 tax return and that this tax issue should be addressed on remand. We reject James's argument; if James wished to contest this issue on app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that James had not yet vested but that the benefit should be \"valued upon vesting at a future hearing.\" At trial Miller testified James needed about four more years to vest and recommended that James's retirement health benefit be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The superior court divided James's PERS pension through a QDRO, but it did not allocate James's retirement health benefit even though Miller testified at some length on this issue. We therefore remand for the superior court to address this apparent oversight. 17 815 P.2d 374, 375 (Alaska 1991). 18 Id. at 376. 19 Id. at 375-76. 20 See id. (c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b15f239-b890-4158-96ce-fe1a71394e30","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3161942-3161942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3161942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"989 P.2d 1281","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ued to treat certain bank accounts as marital and others as separate, making it difficult for the superior court to later determine when the joint marital enterprise ended and how to value the bank accounts. This appeal presents issues under each step of the equitable distribution process — identification, valuation, and distribution — as well as issues of alimony, child visitation expenses, and child support credits. As set forth below, we remand for further proceedings on a number of these issues. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Dea and James Dundas married in 1997 after a lengthy relationship. James began commercial fishing in the earl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3162487 Docket: COA15-209. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162487 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: surance policy. (6) Both Defendant and Mr. Respess described all of the above transactions as \"loans.\" While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be \"loans,\" it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also give"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Respess described all of the above transactions as \"loans.\" While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be \"loans,\" it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also given Defendant a diamond enga"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: licy. (6) Both Defendant and Mr. Respess described all of the above transactions as \"loans.\" While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be \"loans,\" it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also give"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16f9fb7-857d-4d11-b9d0-4520452ba42c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162487-3162487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-209","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: er and defendant-mother were married on 25 April 1992. During their marriage, the couple had two children. The parties subsequently separated on 12 April 2012. On 11 May 2012, plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking child custody, divorce from bed and board, equitable distribution, injunctive relief, and interim distribution. Defendant then filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking child custody, child support, post separation support, permanent alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. On 30 May 2013, the parties were divorced, and on 13 June 2013, a judgment of equitable distribution and an order of permanent alimo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b6acd90-68d5-40ab-a4f2-9ecca8a5a584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1805. Wife agrees that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3162541 Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.2d 30. Docket: 1805. Wife agrees that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b6acd90-68d5-40ab-a4f2-9ecca8a5a584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1805. Wife agrees that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b6acd90-68d5-40ab-a4f2-9ecca8a5a584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1805. Wife agrees that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tion. As to the SEP Account No. 1805, the parties agree that the trial court properly awarded the account to Husband as his separate property. The parties further agree that the trial court's later reference to a division of the account and an order for a QDRO was an error. We remand the court's award of SEP Account No. 1805 to conform to the parties' stipulation. Finally, in regard to the Tag Group money market account, Husband claims the trial court erred in awarding Wife one-half of the balance because the account was an asset of the Tag Group, which the trial court had awarded him as his separate propert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b6acd90-68d5-40ab-a4f2-9ecca8a5a584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1805. Wife agrees that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the present date. So one-half of the increase in the cash surrendered value. . . . [Wife] shall receive one-half of the increase in value from the date of the marriage to the present of First Banker's [sic] Banc, B-A-N-C, Securities, Inc., SEP Individual Retirement Account. . . . [Husband] shall receive the stock in Tag Group, Inc. The only dispute the parties had, which will be tried in the Court, is the value of a certain money market account held by the Tag Group, Inc. . . . Counsel for both parties affirmed that the \"stipulation is binding upon both parties\" and \"that's how [they would] prepare a division of property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b6acd90-68d5-40ab-a4f2-9ecca8a5a584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162541-3162541","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1805. Wife agrees that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: relating to the Wild Horse Creek property and Wife's interest in the marital residence. When Wife's counsel stated that the parties would present evidence of marital misconduct, the trial court advised that it was \"not going to be bound by [the stipulated] property division\" because evidence of marital misconduct might impact the property division as well as maintenance. Husband and Wife both testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial court asked each party to submit \"a proposed judgment and findings because I'm somewhat confused by your earlier stipulation and how it's going to tie into what I'm s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"485b3e11-d84c-4984-bde7-63eb6db750a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0028-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"284 P.3d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3162624 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Howell. Extracted reporter citation: 284 P.3d 880. Docket: CV-15-0028-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162624 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"485b3e11-d84c-4984-bde7-63eb6db750a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0028-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"284 P.3d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"485b3e11-d84c-4984-bde7-63eb6db750a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0028-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"284 P.3d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e divorce, Robert received MRP and VA disability benefits based on a disability rating of 18.62 percent. The family court did not divide Robert's disability benefits but awarded each party \"one-half\" of the MRP as their sole and separate property and issued a qualified domestic relations order to implement that award. ¶3 After the parties' divorce, Robert became unemployable due to his disabilities. Thus, in 2004, the VA changed Robert's disability rating to 100 percent and found him eligible to receive CRSC. The CRSC program permits some veterans injured in combat to waive a portion of their \"disposable\" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"485b3e11-d84c-4984-bde7-63eb6db750a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0028-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"284 P.3d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Robert received MRP and VA disability benefits based on a disability rating of 18.62 percent. The family court did not divide Robert's disability benefits but awarded each party \"one-half\" of the MRP as their sole and separate property and issued a qualified domestic relations order to implement that award. ¶3 After the parties' divorce, Robert became unemployable due to his disabilities. Thus, in 2004, the VA changed Robert's disability rating to 100 percent and found him eligible to receive CRSC. The CRSC program permits some veterans injured in combat to waive a portion of their \"disposable\" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"485b3e11-d84c-4984-bde7-63eb6db750a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3162624-3162624","title":"CourtListener opinion 3162624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-15-0028-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":"284 P.3d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rtion of their \"disposable\" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC. See 10 U.S.C. § 1413a. Federal law prohibits courts from treating CRSC as community property. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1) (authorizing a state court to treat only \"disposable retired pay\" as community property); § 1413a(g) (\"Payments under this section are not retired pay.\"). Robert waived a significant portion of MRP to receive CRSC and, as a result, Diane's monthly share of MRP from 2004 onward decreased dramatically. In 2010, for example, Diane's monthly share of MRP was reduced from $1,116 to $133. 2 MERRILL V. MERRILL Opinion of the Court ¶4 In 2010, Di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3164292 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.E.2d 236. Docket: H-15-008 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3164292 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: unds as a \"Retirement IRA.\" {¶ 4} In reading the proposed agreement into the record, appellee's attorney detailed that, \"The parties have various and sundry retirement and employment-related benefits. It is the agreement of the parties that those shall be QDRO-ed, divided evenly, and that the term of marriage will be the traditional term of marriage from date of marriage in 1989 to today's date.\" Later in the hearing, in a discussion concerning child support, appellee's attorney stated, \"[I]t's further anticipated that any and all retirement 2. accounts and the like, employment-related benefits would be veri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: divorce. The parties expended significant effort in negotiations, and on July 8, 2011, they read their proposed agreement into the record before the magistrate. The only term of the agreement at issue in this appeal pertains to the division of appellant's retirement accounts. {¶ 3} The parties do not contest that during their marriage, appellant worked for approximately 19 years for the Huron County Sheriff's Office. As part of his employment, appellant participated in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\"OPERS\"). Appellant also participated in a deferred compensation program. Shortly before the complaint for di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he negative. {¶ 5} The subsequent consent entry, which was drafted by appellee and entered by the court on September 28, 2011, after being signed by the parties, stated, Each party has, through their respective places of employment, certain rights in a pension and/or retirement plan. Specifically, wife has School Employees Retirement System (SERS) retirement benefits and husband has Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) retirement benefits and an Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation fund. Each party is awarded 50% of the marital component of all plans of the other party. QDROs, DOPOs or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cdb0222-a96d-43d4-9a61-cd635e98ecff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3164292-3164292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3164292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-15-008 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.E.2d 236","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): No. 88468, 2007-Ohio-4038, the Eighth District encountered a similar issue. In that case, the defendant had agreed to give the plaintiff 61 percent of her retirement account at KeyCorp. The separation agreement misidentified the account as the defendant's \"401(k) account,\" instead of the defendant's \"Qualified Cash Balance Pension Plan account.\" Id. at ¶ 3. The plaintiff subsequently learned that the 401(k) account had been zero for several years prior to the divorce. After a hearing on the matter, the magistrate found that the intent of the parties clearly was to divide the balance in the cash pension account."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcf330f2-acf1-460b-b419-018ec4fdd619","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740","title":"CourtListener opinion 3165740","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3520 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3165740 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 3520 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3165740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcf330f2-acf1-460b-b419-018ec4fdd619","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740","title":"CourtListener opinion 3165740","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3520 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcf330f2-acf1-460b-b419-018ec4fdd619","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740","title":"CourtListener opinion 3165740","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3520 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eptions. On June 9, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the outstanding exceptions concerning child support and Mother's petition for contempt and/or specific performance of the post-nuptial agreement. During the hearing, Father testified that an NBA pension that he was entitled to had -3- J-S70009-15 gone to pay for a child support obligation in Virginia.2 (See N.T. Hearing, 6/09/14, at 133-36). Father did not testify nor did counsel present any evidence that any source of income, other than the pension, was going toward his Virginia child support obligations. On the adjourned date of the hearing Octo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcf330f2-acf1-460b-b419-018ec4fdd619","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3165740-3165740","title":"CourtListener opinion 3165740","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3520 EDA 2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ssued its opinion incorporating its October 24, 2014 opinion and order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Father raises the following questions for our review pro se: 1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by ordering money escrowed pursuant to the Montgomery County Domestic Relations order No. 10-26039 dated November 19, 2013, for the purpose of child support, to be distributed and paid to [Mother] towards amounts owed pursuant to their [m]arital [s]ettlement [a]greement[?] 2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by concluding that [Father] has an earning capacity of $50,000.00 per year (net monthly income of $3,191.00) without basis for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3166192 Extracted reporter citation: 461 N.E.2d 1273. Docket: 1: The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3166192 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: onstituted a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced at trial by Carrie. The trial court also awarded to Carrie a Ruger Mark III Pistol and Lawrence App. No. 14CA30 2 assorted compound an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ivision, the trial court determined that $51,500 in cash taken by Carrie from a safe in the parties' marital residence constituted a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e trial court erred in classifying the $51,500 in cash from the parties' safe as marital property, it further erred in denying his request for a QDRO to divide the parties' retirement accounts. {¶ 39} \"When considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension or retirement benefits in a divorce, the trial court must apply its discretion based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms and conditions of the pension or retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result.\" Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. \"Accordingly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56e09abf-33c8-4756-a465-0e432ec83d49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166192-3166192","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"461 N.E.2d 1273","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced at trial by Carrie. The trial court also awarded to Carrie a Ruger Mark III Pistol and Lawrence App. No. 14CA30 2 assorted compound an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"446328bd-273e-4cbd-b13c-22e9ea7850c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166786","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3166786 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3166786 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"446328bd-273e-4cbd-b13c-22e9ea7850c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166786","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"446328bd-273e-4cbd-b13c-22e9ea7850c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3166786-3166786","title":"CourtListener opinion 3166786","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rent of the adult child, what if there is a dispute between the adult child and the custodial parent with regard to the access of those funds? If the adult child were to enter into a contract, would that contract be enforceable against her? Further, while the domestic relations order indicates that she essentially \"remains a minor,\" does that mean she has been adjudged incompetent? There is no order to that effect. 9 {¶27} Under these circumstances, it would seem that it would be in the best interest of the adult child to have a guardianship established in order to ensure the adult child receives the protections of the guardianship"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9d2fc-5f8e-4d49-8848-1726180c4a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3167487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3167487 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3167487 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9d2fc-5f8e-4d49-8848-1726180c4a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3167487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9d2fc-5f8e-4d49-8848-1726180c4a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3167487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the mediated settlement agreement entered into by the parties is ambiguous, and, if so, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the proper interpretation of that agreement and to enter an appropriate qualified domestic relations order that comports with its terms. Teague v. Teague, 122 So. 2d 3d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Reversed and Remanded. LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9d2fc-5f8e-4d49-8848-1726180c4a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3167487-3167487","title":"CourtListener opinion 3167487","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ourt for further proceedings to determine whether the mediated settlement agreement entered into by the parties is ambiguous, and, if so, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the proper interpretation of that agreement and to enter an appropriate qualified domestic relations order that comports with its terms. Teague v. Teague, 122 So. 2d 3d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Reversed and Remanded. LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3168428 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 322257 Calhoun Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3168428 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ons be spelled out in the judgment of divorce, and that was not done in the parties' judgment of divorce. -3- This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial court's decision interpreting a divorce judgment and qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO) is reviewed de novo, Neville v Neville (On Remand), 295 Mich App 460, 466; 812 NW2d 816 (2012), as are questions of statutory interpretation, AFSCME v Detroit, 468 Mich 388, 398; 662 NW2d 695 (2003). III. ANALYSIS We conclude that the trial court erred in determining that MCL 552.101(5) required that defendant be allowed to select option (b) in paragra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: payable to the Alternate Payee will begin when the Participant begins to receive benefits under the Plan and will be in the form of a single life annuity payable during the lifetime of the Participant. If the Participant elects to receive an early-reduced retirement benefit, the Alternate Payee's benefit shall be reduced by the same factor. Death of Participant: If the Participant predeceases the Alternate Payee after payments to the Alternate Payee begin, all benefits payable to the Alternate Payee will permanently cease. Death of Alternate Payee: If the Alternate Payee predeceases the Participant after payments to th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: AKE ALAN HUDSON, LC No. 2013-001252-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and SAAD and HOEKSTRA, JJ. BOONSTRA, P.J. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted1 the trial court's entry of an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) directing plaintiff's pension plan administrator, the Michigan Public Schools Employees Retirement System (MPSERS), to grant defendant an interest in her pension benefits in the form of a single life annuity payable over defendant's lifetime, and the trial court's denial of reconsideration of that order. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and defendant we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24cd43a5-3cbb-42c8-9c8d-2174736cf61a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3168428-3168428","title":"CourtListener opinion 3168428","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"322257 Calhoun Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: mestic Relations Order.2 Defendant sent to plaintiff a proposed EDRO to be filed with the MPSERS. The document is a standardized form that allows the preparer to select certain options. Paragraph six of the EDRO states that \"[t]he Participant assigns to the Alternate Payee a portion of the Participant's benefits from the Plan and the Plan will pay benefits to the Alternate Payee according to the following terms and conditions.\" Following this heading, defendant filled in a table that showed that he, as the alternate payee, would receive 39.5% of plaintiff's allowance, with the years of service included in the calculation iden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3169181 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 49A02-1501-DR-51 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169181 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ce the date of final separation. The Order shall first be submitted to Wife's attorney for approval and then to the Court before it is forwarded to Husband's employer. Appellant's App. p. 12. Jerry did not appeal the decree. [5] Jerry's attorney drafted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). On August 30, 2006, the trial court issued the QDRO. The QDRO stated that Phyllis was an alternate payee of the account and was entitled to \"receive a portion of the participant's benefits payable under any employer sponsored defined benefit retirement plan.\" Id. at 17. The QDRO further explained that Phyllis was entitled to receive $50,47"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r (QDRO). On August 30, 2006, the trial court issued the QDRO. The QDRO stated that Phyllis was an alternate payee of the account and was entitled to \"receive a portion of the participant's benefits payable under any employer sponsored defined benefit retirement plan.\" Id. at 17. The QDRO further explained that Phyllis was entitled to receive $50,471.11 from Jerry's pension plan. Id. at 18- 19. In addition, the QDRO provided: In the event the administrator [of the Plan] determines that this order is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, both parties shall cooperate with the administrator to make the changes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a petition to dissolve her marriage with Jerry. On April 13, 2006, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution of marriage. At the time the court issued the decree, Jerry was employed by the Indianapolis Fire Department. The fire department offered a pension benefit for its employees, and Jerry participated in the pension plan. [4] The court determined that Phyllis was entitled to one-half of Jerry's pension, or $50,471.11. The court further ordered as follows: Husband's attorney shall immediately prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order providing Wife with her above noted share of the account, plu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84f542c1-b587-4889-aa50-9ce45808e37d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169181-3169181","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169181","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"49A02-1501-DR-51 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nder the decree. Phyllis' request for relief was necessary and just, and the court's clarification was not an abuse of discretion. See Case v. Case, 794 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court's alteration of the amount wife received from husband's 401(k) was not an abuse of discretion where the alteration preserved the original allocation of assets under the divorce decree). [25] Jerry also challenges the trial court's entry of judgment against him in the amount of $14,000 for his \"failure to contribute any funds from his pension to [Phyllis].\" Appellant's App. p. 34. Having reviewed the record, we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3169210 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY KAY FRARY AND DANIEL L. KNIPPER Upon the Petition of MARY KAY FRARY. Extracted reporter citation: 832 N.W.2d 663. Docket: 14-1398. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169210 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sion of property upon dissolution of marriage and premarital agreements. Schedule \"A\" set forth the assets of Mary Kay the parties agreed would remain with Mary Kay, including: \"IRA at 1st Nat. of Oelwein Prime Vest (First Trust) from divorce settlement [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO & previous Hall & Hall IRA Plan, $36,000\"; \"Mass. Fidelity IRA (Aegon) from divorce settlement, $36,000\"; and \"401k at Hall & Hall (18,000.00) of which was rolled over from divorce [from Denny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00.\" In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distributio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00.\" In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Other Investments. Each party shall receive any savings, stocks, bonds and other investments in their name. Any pension plans of a party shall be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Act Order (QDRO) for the contributions of each party to their pension plans during the term of the marriage and each party shall sign all documents necessa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Other Investments. Each party shall receive any savings, stocks, bonds and other investments in their name. Any pension plans of a party shall be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Act Order (QDRO) for the contributions of each party to their pension plans during the term of the marriage and each party shall sign all documents necessary to carry out this provision. Petitioner shall prepare any QDRO for her pension plans and Respondent shall prepare any QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eeabe831-408f-4720-86dd-7ddbccc94c16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169210-3169210","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169210","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1398","extracted_reporter_citation":"832 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): with Mary Kay, including: \"IRA at 1st Nat. of Oelwein Prime Vest (First Trust) from divorce settlement [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO & previous Hall & Hall IRA Plan, $36,000\"; \"Mass. Fidelity IRA (Aegon) from divorce settlement, $36,000\"; and \"401k at Hall & Hall (18,000.00) of which was rolled over from divorce [from Denny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00.\" In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Othe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e87a7f2e-5373-46e3-bb48-d7d742595702","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3169706 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169706 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e87a7f2e-5373-46e3-bb48-d7d742595702","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e87a7f2e-5373-46e3-bb48-d7d742595702","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n the parties' motions to show cause and for attorney fees, as well as Melvin's motion to modify life insurance provisions. The record further reflects that at the May 13, 2014 hearing, Melvin's counsel first mentioned that his \"client has been informed by QDRO consultants that the DOPO is not accurate and has to be redone prior to retirement * * *.\" Melvin's counsel then indicated that he would file a \"civil motion on the DOPO so that we can get everything resolved.\" Although Melvin filed his motion on June 30, 2014, he never requested a hearing nor did he raise the same argument that he raises now on appeal,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e87a7f2e-5373-46e3-bb48-d7d742595702","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: affirm. A. Procedural History and Facts {¶2} Melvin and plaintiff-appellee, Barbara Morgan, were divorced on March 7, 2013. Eight days later, the court issued a division of property order (\"DOPO\") regarding the division of Melvin's Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund (\"OPFPF\") pension, which had been preapproved and signed by counsel for both parties. On May 20, 2013, the court docketed notice from the OPFPF accepting the DOPO and its determination \"that the [DOPO] meets the requirements of the Ohio Revised Codes Sections 3105.80 to 3105.90.\" {¶3} On June 30, 2014, 13 months after the OPFPF accepted the DOPO,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e87a7f2e-5373-46e3-bb48-d7d742595702","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169706-3169706","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: continuing jurisdiction over the underlying matter. See Cameron v. Cameron, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-349, 2012-Ohio-6258, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 3105.171(I) (\"After a trial court issues a divorce decree, it lacks jurisdiction to modify or amend the marital property division, including the division of a pension fund, unless the decree expressly reserves jurisdiction or the parties expressly consent in writing to the modification.\"). Here, there is no dispute over the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to consider and rule upon Melvin's motion. Rather, the sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"062b8d24-bba7-4bfc-b1d6-791de0c21d08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"369 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3169896 Extracted case name: S.V. v. R.V. Extracted reporter citation: 369 S.W.3d 918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169896 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"062b8d24-bba7-4bfc-b1d6-791de0c21d08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"369 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"062b8d24-bba7-4bfc-b1d6-791de0c21d08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"369 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r, at trial Paul merely insinuated that Teresa \"should have known where I was at,\" either through \"contact of our children\" or by virtue of her specialized knowledge as a licensed attorney. Though in his brief Paul argued that Teresa should have obtained a qualified domestic relations order or maintained regular contact with Paul or Conoco, such arguments were not presented to the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the discovery rule and enforcing the retirement benefits provision of Paul and Teresa's New Mexico divorce decree. Accordingly, we overrule Paul's sole issue. 7 CONCL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"062b8d24-bba7-4bfc-b1d6-791de0c21d08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"369 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: immons divorced in New Mexico in 1987. In 2013, Teresa registered the parties' New Mexico divorce decree in Texas. Teresa subsequently filed a Petition for Enforcement of Order, seeking to enforce a provision of the decree concerning the division of Paul's retirement benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment granting Teresa's request to enforce the provision. In one issue, Paul contends that the enforcement action was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion by rendering judgment in favor of Teresa. We will affirm the trial court's judgment. BACKGR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"062b8d24-bba7-4bfc-b1d6-791de0c21d08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3169896-3169896","title":"CourtListener opinion 3169896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"369 S.W.3d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l Paul merely insinuated that Teresa \"should have known where I was at,\" either through \"contact of our children\" or by virtue of her specialized knowledge as a licensed attorney. Though in his brief Paul argued that Teresa should have obtained a qualified domestic relations order or maintained regular contact with Paul or Conoco, such arguments were not presented to the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the discovery rule and enforcing the retirement benefits provision of Paul and Teresa's New Mexico divorce decree. Accordingly, we overrule Paul's sole issue. 7 CONCL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3174702 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 277. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3174702 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tions, warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. .... 21. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: (a) Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense. The Marital Share shall be a fraction, the numerator of -2- which is the number of reserve retirement points earned during the marriage and the denominator is the Husband's total number of reserve retirement points. If Husband has a further retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the parties present evidence from expert witnesses to assist the court in resolving the matter. At the later hearing, wife presented the expert testimony of Leslie Shaner to explain the provisions of the proposed orders in the context of dividing military retirement benefits. Shaner formerly worked as an attorney with the law firm representing wife in the proceedings, and had drafted some provisions in wife's proposed order. The trial court, after making some modifications not pertinent to this appeal, entered wife's proposed order (the Order appealed here). The portions of the Agreement relevant to this appeal are: 3."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Agreement. Husband's most substantive challenges concern \"anti-circumvention\" provisions (paragraphs 15,2 16,3 17,4 2 15. Merger of Benefits and Indemnification: The Member agrees not to merge the Member's disposable military retired pay with any other pension and not to pursue any course of action that would defeat the Former Spouse's right to receive a portion of the disposable military retired pay of the Member. The Member agrees not to take any action by merger of the military retirement pension so as to cause a limitation in the amount of the total retired pay in which the Member has a vested interest a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7243670a-b775-4a04-903b-50dd4244f197","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3174702-3174702","title":"CourtListener opinion 3174702","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 277","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ife will also receive a similar one-half marital share of that benefit (with the numerator and denominator expressed in months of creditable service rather than reserve retirement points). Husband shall elect (or cause to be selected) participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) of at least a 50% survivor benefit. The Agreement contains no express indemnification clause. II. CHALLENGED PROVISIONS IN THE ORDER \"[O]n appeal, our standard of review for property settlement agreements is the same as for other contracts.\" Craig v. Craig, 59 Va. App. 527, 537, 721 S.E.2d 24, 28 (2012). \"If the terms of the agreement are"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3177444 Extracted reporter citation: 980 N.E.2d 363. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3177444 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Settlement Agreement (the \"PSA\") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading \"401K & PENSION,\" the PSA stated that \"Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A).\" Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that \"[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed by both parties hereto.\" Id. at 4. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1505-DR-309| February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 19 [3] A Qualified Domestic Relations"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: able accounts established on behalf of [Wife]. [Wife] shall thereafter be entitled to self-direct the investments in [Wife's] accounts subject to the terms and restrictions of the Plans. Id. at 9-10. [4] The October 5, 2012 QDRO was sent to the Con-Way retirement plan administrator, and senior retirement plan administrator Jack Cosgrove determined that it did not qualify as a qualified domestic relations order, in part because Con-Way had two separate retirement plans with different plan documents and a separate order was needed for each of the two plans. Cosgrove sent an email message to Wife and counsel for H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: olution of marriage. On October 5, 2012, the trial court entered a summary dissolution decree providing in part that the court approved the Property Settlement Agreement (the \"PSA\") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading \"401K & PENSION,\" the PSA stated that \"Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A).\" Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that \"[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and exec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74af988-bb49-426f-935f-d0b6d01cbe01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3177444-3177444","title":"CourtListener opinion 3177444","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"980 N.E.2d 363","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): for dissolution of marriage. On October 5, 2012, the trial court entered a summary dissolution decree providing in part that the court approved the Property Settlement Agreement (the \"PSA\") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading \"401K & PENSION,\" the PSA stated that \"Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A).\" Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that \"[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3178511 Extracted case name: MAGALLANES v. MAGALLANES. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3178511 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: otion for new trial, claiming the superior court erred by allowing Michael Magallanes (Husband) to retain $3,000 in proceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: oceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement on the division of community property, which was incorporated in a February 2008 decree. Among other t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: new trial, claiming the superior court erred by allowing Michael Magallanes (Husband) to retain $3,000 in proceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd2a4d-b5fb-4cc1-80d8-4b129d8d0280","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178511-3178511","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178511","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: sset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement on the division of community property, which was incorporated in a February 2008 decree. Among other things, the decree required Husband to pay Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees; awarded Wife one-half of Husband's retirement accounts to be divided by a QDRO; required Husband to pay for the cost of preparing the QDRO and required the sale of the community's home, with the net proceeds divided equal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3178995 Extracted reporter citation: 331 N.W.2d 752. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3178995 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ree was drawn, verbatim, from the stipulated agreement of the parties. In March 2010, Theno retired from U.S. Steel. In July 2010, he began collecting retirement benefits. In January 2011, the district court issued the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) provided for in the judgment and decree, which required Theno's pension administrator to pay Starkovich a portion of Theno's benefits. The payment formula from the judgment and decree was included in the QDRO. Theno reviewed and signed the QDRO as part of the district court's review and approval process. Theno did not challenge the QDRO at the time it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2. Their marriage was dissolved in October 1994. The dissolution was formalized in a judgment and decree, which was based upon a stipulated agreement negotiated by the parties. The judgment and decree included a provision addressing distribution of Theno's retirement benefits, which Theno earned working at U.S. Steel from 1975 to 1982 and from 1989 until he retired in March 2010. The provision of the judgment and decree addressing Theno's retirement benefits provided: The Court shall enter a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall provide that [Starkovich] shall receive a portion of each monthly or other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hich shall be the total number of months that 2 [Theno] accumulates benefits in the plan prior to their being paid. This payment formula is commonly referred to as the Janssen formula. See Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Minn. 1983) (describing pension division formula). The retirement provision of the judgment and decree was drawn, verbatim, from the stipulated agreement of the parties. In March 2010, Theno retired from U.S. Steel. In July 2010, he began collecting retirement benefits. In January 2011, the district court issued the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) provided for in the judgm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69ed6f03-5f5d-4a35-acbe-5c4745366579","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3178995-3178995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3178995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"331 N.W.2d 752","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: N.W.2d 519, 522 (Minn. 1997). A district court's decision not to reopen a judgment and decree is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 386 (Minn. 1996). \"While a district court may not modify a final property division,\" such as the division of pension benefits in a judgment and decree, \"it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties' substantive rights.\" Nelson v. Nelson, 806 N.W.2d 870, 871 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted). \"An order implementing or enforcing a dissolution decree does"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99e94f2a-1e8d-4d96-afbc-6718bc61c8e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906","title":"CourtListener opinion 3180906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"394 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"982 A.2d 1230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3180906 Extracted reporter citation: 982 A.2d 1230. Docket: 394 WDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3180906 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99e94f2a-1e8d-4d96-afbc-6718bc61c8e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906","title":"CourtListener opinion 3180906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"394 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"982 A.2d 1230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99e94f2a-1e8d-4d96-afbc-6718bc61c8e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906","title":"CourtListener opinion 3180906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"394 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"982 A.2d 1230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ble distribution claims. Paragraph five of the equitable distribution order addressed Wife's J-A35024-15 entitlement to a portion of Husband's SERS pension in the amount of $2,000.00 per month and the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). The parties' divorce decree was entered on August 12, 2014. Because Husband did not make $2,000.00 payments to Wife while the QDRO was being finalized by SERS, on December 11, 2014, Wife sent a pro se letter to the court of common pleas seeking to hold Husband in contempt of the May 16, 2014 equitable distribution order. At a hearing on Wife's pet"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99e94f2a-1e8d-4d96-afbc-6718bc61c8e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906","title":"CourtListener opinion 3180906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"394 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"982 A.2d 1230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orah Ann Weishner (\"Wife\"). We affirm. We summarize the history of this case as follows. Husband and Wife were married on June 3, 1978. On November 24, 2010, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. During the divorce proceedings, Husband received a monthly pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"SERS\"). Based upon the amount of Husband's pension, Wife received monthly alimony pendente lite payments of $2,100.00. On May 16, 2014, upon agreement of the parties, the trial court entered an order disposing of the parties' equitable distribution claims. Paragraph five of the equitable distr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99e94f2a-1e8d-4d96-afbc-6718bc61c8e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3180906-3180906","title":"CourtListener opinion 3180906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"394 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"982 A.2d 1230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: f Indiana County Civil Division at No(s): 12363 CD 2010 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Appellant, Terrence R. Weishner (\"Husband\"), appeals from the order finding him in contempt of an equitable distribution order in this divorce matter involving Appellee, Deborah Ann Weishner (\"Wife\"). We affirm. We summarize the history of this case as follows. Husband and Wife were married on June 3, 1978. On November 24, 2010, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. During the divorce proceedings, Husband received a monthly pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e5c4724-16b5-400f-86d5-70da60ab23a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432","title":"CourtListener opinion 3181432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 S.W.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3181432 Extracted reporter citation: 443 S.W.3d 29. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3181432 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e5c4724-16b5-400f-86d5-70da60ab23a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432","title":"CourtListener opinion 3181432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 S.W.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e5c4724-16b5-400f-86d5-70da60ab23a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432","title":"CourtListener opinion 3181432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 S.W.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the President's Page of the September-October 2014 issue of the Missouri Bar Journal. Mr. Kim—apparently based on his negative experience with two Missouri attorneys who were involved in Mr. Kim's 1993 divorce proceeding and a 2013 proceeding relating to a qualified domestic relations order arising therefrom—determined that Shelton's positive words about the Missouri Bar were false declarations under § 575.060 RSMo (2000). Mr. Kim requested damages of $587,928.51 for the allegedly fraudulent words contained in the article. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Kim timely"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e5c4724-16b5-400f-86d5-70da60ab23a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3181432-3181432","title":"CourtListener opinion 3181432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 S.W.3d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ent's Page of the September-October 2014 issue of the Missouri Bar Journal. Mr. Kim—apparently based on his negative experience with two Missouri attorneys who were involved in Mr. Kim's 1993 divorce proceeding and a 2013 proceeding relating to a qualified domestic relations order arising therefrom—determined that Shelton's positive words about the Missouri Bar were false declarations under § 575.060 RSMo (2000). Mr. Kim requested damages of $587,928.51 for the allegedly fraudulent words contained in the article. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Kim timely"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3183182 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3183182 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of his retirement benefits in order to prepare a DOPO. The trial court ordered Husband to execute an authorization for Wife's expert so he could obtain the necessary information; thus the hearing was continued. {¶7} During the two day hearing, Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants testified on behalf of Wife regarding Husband's OPERS benefits, the method of determining the age and service portion, and the protocol for dividing benefits. Hogan's testimony was mostly consistent over the two days. However, his testimony differed slightly with respect to the exact number of Husband's years of service and the number of years t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the final hearing, Husband was receiving disability benefits as he had left his employment with the police department. Due to the parties' delay and the failure by counsel for Wife to submit a compliant Division of Property Order (DOPO) relative to husband's retirement benefits, the final decree of divorce was not filed until November 19, 2007. The trial court found in pertinent part: 6. The marital portion of Husband's OPERS retirement shall be awarded to Wife by DOPO (Husband may have the option to obtain a current value and pay a lump sum to Wife). *** 19. Mortgage payments to be paid by Husband during the pendency of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r dividing benefits. Hogan's testimony was mostly consistent over the two days. However, his testimony differed slightly with respect to the exact number of Husband's years of service and the number of years that was the marital portion of the age and service pension. {¶8} Before he received the information from PERS, Hogan testified that, -3- based upon information he had received from Wife's counsel, Husband had 29.666 years of service and the marital portion was 6.666 years. After he received the information from PERS, Hogan stated Husband accumulated 29.749 years of service, of which 6.612 years was the marital p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3da38bee-bca3-40a1-b85d-12ef1585de2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183182-3183182","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: er. (emphasis added) {¶3} Neither party appealed the original decree. {¶4} Wife's counsel prepared and submitted a DOPO to Husband's attorney, and Wife contends Husband repeatedly refused to sign it. The DOPO submitted by wife sought payments to her as the Alternate Payee from Husband's plan from two distinct benefits: the age and service retirement benefit, and the disability monthly benefit. This was the basis for Husband's refusal to sign. Husband took the position that his disability benefits were separate property, and that Wife was only entitled to the marital portion of his age and service benefits, which he was not r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3183829 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3183829 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ipt to facilitate our review of the decision below, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's final 2 judgment of dissolution order. Case 15-4161 After Husband's first appeal had been perfected, it was brought to the trial court's attention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) used to distribute Husband's pension plan was ineffectual for this type of pension. The trial court entered a second order attempting to remedy this error and clarify the distribution of this marital asset. Husband argues the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this new order. However, \"[w]hile [an] appeal is pending, the trial court retain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: band's two appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion. We write first to address the need for proper preservation of appellate issues in equitable distribution cases. The remainder of the opinion will address the distribution of Husband's pension. Case 14-1364 Husband's first assertion on appeal is that the trial court erred in its distribution of the marital property by failing to make specific factual findings as to the disposition of several of the couple's assets and liabilities. However, Husband did not provide a trial transcript for appellate review, nor did he alert the trial court to this"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ilitate our review of the decision below, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's final 2 judgment of dissolution order. Case 15-4161 After Husband's first appeal had been perfected, it was brought to the trial court's attention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) used to distribute Husband's pension plan was ineffectual for this type of pension. The trial court entered a second order attempting to remedy this error and clarify the distribution of this marital asset. Husband argues the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this new order. However, \"[w]hile [an] appeal is pending, the trial court retain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd250a0c-fd38-40bd-be09-843acb47ed4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3183829-3183829","title":"CourtListener opinion 3183829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ali (\"Husband\") appeals two orders arising from his divorce from Appellee Joyce Farghali (\"Wife\"). Husband's two appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion. We write first to address the need for proper preservation of appellate issues in equitable distribution cases. The remainder of the opinion will address the distribution of Husband's pension. Case 14-1364 Husband's first assertion on appeal is that the trial court erred in its distribution of the marital property by failing to make specific factual findings as to the disposition of several of the couple's assets and liabilities. However, Husband did not pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"497b3d55-4de5-422c-bfe9-5d2b51c96b46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156","title":"CourtListener opinion 3184156","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3184156 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3184156 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"497b3d55-4de5-422c-bfe9-5d2b51c96b46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156","title":"CourtListener opinion 3184156","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"497b3d55-4de5-422c-bfe9-5d2b51c96b46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3184156-3184156","title":"CourtListener opinion 3184156","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: waiving his right to a preliminary hearing and jury trial in November 2014, Fernando Chavez pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of contraband (methamphetamine) in jail (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a))1 and one misdemeanor count of violating a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)) and admitted he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12). Pursuant to a negotiated agreement the trial court sentenced Chavez to a state prison term of four years: four years (the two-year lower term doubled under the three strikes law) for po"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3185044 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 619 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3185044 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch 19, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2001-FC-002436-15 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016 Carla S. Grothey n/k/a Carla S. Meyer (\"Wife\") appeals from the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered on March 19, 2015, in the York County Court of Common Pleas, which was drafted by her ex-husband, Thomas E. Grothey (\"Husband\"). Wife complains the court erred in adopting Husband's QDRO because it was incorrectly drafted. Based on the following, we are constrained to reverse and remand. The facts and procedural history are as follows."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: oth agree they were married on February 14, 1987, separated on September 1, 2001, and divorced on January 14, 2004. Husband is a trooper for the J-A34026-15 Pennsylvania State Police,1 and participated in a deferred compensation plan as well as a defined retirement plan/pension as a member of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Employees' Retirement System (\"SERS\"). Prior to finalizing the divorce, a January 5, 2004, hearing was conducted to address the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. Pertinent to this appeal, the parties agreed that Wife would be rewarded 65% of the marital portion wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: were married on February 14, 1987, separated on September 1, 2001, and divorced on January 14, 2004. Husband is a trooper for the J-A34026-15 Pennsylvania State Police,1 and participated in a deferred compensation plan as well as a defined retirement plan/pension as a member of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Employees' Retirement System (\"SERS\"). Prior to finalizing the divorce, a January 5, 2004, hearing was conducted to address the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. Pertinent to this appeal, the parties agreed that Wife would be rewarded 65% of the marital portion with respec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa65b9c6-49b3-4f72-a5e4-86d9a4aaabcb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3185044-3185044","title":"CourtListener opinion 3185044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"619 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ew: 1. Whether the lower court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in adopting the Domestic Relations Order on March 19, 2015 submitted by Former Husband/Participant in the SERS pension which provides for a specific dollar amount to the Alternate Payee/Former Wife? 2. Whether the lower court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in failing to adopt the Domestic Relations Order proposed by the Former Wife/Alternate Payee herein which provides for Former Wife/Alternate Payee's share of the SERS pension to be calculated in ____________________________________________ 4 The same day, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3188202 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 302 P.3d 357. Docket: 42875 LINDA C. KESTING. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3188202 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sting (\"Linda\"), obtained a judgment against Respondent, James Kesting (\"James\"), for breach of an alimony/spousal support agreement entered into during their divorce. When that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: itionally, James argues that the QDRO was not made pursuant to Idaho's \"domestic relations law\" because, in Idaho, a non-merged spousal support agreement is only enforceable under contract law. Both parties agree that while a QDRO is usually used to divide a retirement plan upon divorce, a QDRO may be used enforce a judgment to collect delinquent support payments. We 3 have not previously addressed this issue, but we agree with other courts that have concluded that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a prior support obligation. See Stinner v. Stinner, 554 A.2d 45, 48 (Pa. 1989) (holding that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Linda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb648e2-772a-4614-aa61-3266b8da236b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3188202-3188202","title":"CourtListener opinion 3188202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42875 LINDA C. KESTING","extracted_reporter_citation":"302 P.3d 357","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Linda timely appealed. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Linda filed suit alleging that James breached a spousal support agreement entered into by the parties during their divorce. The support agreement was a separate agreement not merged into their divorce decree or approved by the court in that proceeding. The agreement in question dealt only"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6db5d285-490d-4c64-a1f1-9398ae71e396","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441","title":"CourtListener opinion 3190441","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3190441 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3190441 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6db5d285-490d-4c64-a1f1-9398ae71e396","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441","title":"CourtListener opinion 3190441","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6db5d285-490d-4c64-a1f1-9398ae71e396","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3190441-3190441","title":"CourtListener opinion 3190441","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lating a protective order, with all counts to be served consecutively to each other. The latter jail days were suspended, with further orders of intensive supervised probation under conditions including, inter alia, contact with the infant son only \"upon a domestic relations order *** as order[ed] by DR Court.\" 1 A more detailed assessment of the incident and injuries leading to the charges at issue is not necessary in the present appeal. An additional charge of unlawful restraint was subsequently dismissed. Fairfield County, Case No. 15 CA 37 3 {¶5} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 2015. He herein raises the follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3191315 Docket: COA15-253. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3191315 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dant to move with the children to Arizona. Defendant does not intend to move to Arizona. 16. In 2013 the parties were offered an early pension distribution from Henkle also known as Dial, a former employer of the Plaintiff. This pension had been divided by a QDRO pursuant to paragraph 16(h) of the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff accepted the offer and received $46,636.99. Defendant did not accept the offer and retains her interest in the pension plan. 17. The Defendant and the minor children lived in the - 12 - LASECKI V. LASECKI Opinion of the Court marital home until it was sold by short sale in July of 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: policies provided by Plaintiff's employer. The parties' estates can be found above. Each is now renting a home. Their primary assets appear to be retirement [accounts] divided pursuant to the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff has continued to contribute to retirement plans after the date of separation. The Plaintiff has enjoyed high earnings and the children enjoyed the benefit of his earnings throughout the marriage and most of the separation. His payments to Defendant under the Separation Agreement can be found above. The accustomed standard of living of the parties and the children were high prior to the separation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and is hopeful that he can secure a position with that company. This job prospect is favorable and he has again asked Defendant to move with the children to Arizona. Defendant does not intend to move to Arizona. 16. In 2013 the parties were offered an early pension distribution from Henkle also known as Dial, a former employer of the Plaintiff. This pension had been divided by a QDRO pursuant to paragraph 16(h) of the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff accepted the offer and received $46,636.99. Defendant did not accept the offer and retains her interest in the pension plan. 17. The Defendant and the minor children live"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3f7a252-aff8-4bc0-8324-35b2dff511d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3191315-3191315","title":"CourtListener opinion 3191315","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-253","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: I. Background Plaintiff and Stacey M. Lasecki (\"defendant\") married in 1993, and three children were born to the marriage. On 24 August 2012, plaintiff and defendant separated and executed a Separation Agreement, which resolved issues of child custody, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorneys' fees. In the Separation Agreement, the parties agreed that plaintiff would pay defendant $2,900.00 per month in child support and $3,600.00 per month in alimony. The parties also agreed that plaintiff would pay a joint credit card debt. The parties further agreed that in the event that either party breached the Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb857680-c7bc-4bf6-bb5d-f8bc3f54f7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192113","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3192113 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3192113 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb857680-c7bc-4bf6-bb5d-f8bc3f54f7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192113","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb857680-c7bc-4bf6-bb5d-f8bc3f54f7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192113","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rement System, was formerly married to interested party Angela M. Batorsky, who is also a retired state employee and Retirement System member. Their 2002 judgment of divorce and incorporated stipulations of settlement required petitioner to pay a share of his pension benefits to Batorsky calculated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement opt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb857680-c7bc-4bf6-bb5d-f8bc3f54f7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192113","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: culated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement option by which, following his death, she would receive a benefit calculated according to the Majauskas formula.1 The Retirement System subsequently calculated the survivorship benefits in accord with this plan. Petitioner thereafter sought postjudgment relief relative to the distribution of his pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb857680-c7bc-4bf6-bb5d-f8bc3f54f7d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192113-3192113","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192113","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e and incorporated stipulations of settlement required petitioner to pay a share of his pension benefits to Batorsky calculated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement option by which, following his death, she would receive a benefit calculated according to the Majauskas formula.1 The Retirement System subsequently calculated the survivorship benefits in acc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3192275 Extracted reporter citation: 858 N.W.2d 865. Docket: A-15-507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3192275 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion, (3) the award of alimony, (4) failing to include Kayla's Edward Jones retirement account ending in 617 in its property division calculation as a marital asset, and (5) ordering Todd to pay a property equalization payment \"forthwith\" rather than through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Child custody and visitation determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court's determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (2015). An appellate court also review"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of $1,500 per month for a term of 5 years, based on the circumstances of the parties, and the length of their marriage. Todd's position was that there should be no award of alimony. -5- (c) Evidence Regarding Disputed Property Kayla owns four Edward Jones retirement accounts, three of which the parties agreed are marital property. However, Kayla claimed that the account ending in 617 was a nonmarital asset because it had always been solely in her name; it was initially funded by her parents in 1987, long before the marriage; and she had never made any contributions to this account. The record shows that Kayla's parents bought"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . Bock v. Dalbey, 283 Neb. 994, 815 N.W.2d 530 (2012). A QDRO, generally speaking, is simply an enforcement device of the decree of dissolution. Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87, 92, 744 N.W.2d 444, 448 (2008). A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Neb. App. 478, 785 N.W.2d 159 (2010). Stated another way, a QDRO provides a means of an alternate payee, in this case a former spouse, to receive payments from another's retirement account. Black's Law Dictionary 1360 (9th ed. 2011). - 13 - In the present case, the court did no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a197098-e593-4d96-aade-42b2055c9a14","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3192275-3192275","title":"CourtListener opinion 3192275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-507","extracted_reporter_citation":"858 N.W.2d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: , 92, 744 N.W.2d 444, 448 (2008). A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Neb. App. 478, 785 N.W.2d 159 (2010). Stated another way, a QDRO provides a means of an alternate payee, in this case a former spouse, to receive payments from another's retirement account. Black's Law Dictionary 1360 (9th ed. 2011). - 13 - In the present case, the court did not divide the retirement accounts; rather it awarded each party his or her own accounts, divided the remaining assets and debts, and then awarded Kayla an equalization judgment. Howev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8e9638d-6d87-48ba-83ff-fc62b5fab279","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693","title":"CourtListener opinion 3193693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in Cause No. 27","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 S.W.3d 801","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3193693 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dixon. Extracted reporter citation: 464 S.W.3d 801. Docket: sheet in Cause No. 27. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3193693 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8e9638d-6d87-48ba-83ff-fc62b5fab279","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693","title":"CourtListener opinion 3193693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in Cause No. 27","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 S.W.3d 801","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8e9638d-6d87-48ba-83ff-fc62b5fab279","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693","title":"CourtListener opinion 3193693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in Cause No. 27","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 S.W.3d 801","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: AM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CV35,624, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8e9638d-6d87-48ba-83ff-fc62b5fab279","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693","title":"CourtListener opinion 3193693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in Cause No. 27","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 S.W.3d 801","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the trial court for trial on the merits. BACKGROUND Ned and Valerie were divorced"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8e9638d-6d87-48ba-83ff-fc62b5fab279","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3193693-3193693","title":"CourtListener opinion 3193693","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in Cause No. 27","extracted_reporter_citation":"464 S.W.3d 801","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CV35,624, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3195296 Extracted case name: RICHARD JERONIMUS v. ZOILA MARIA JERONIMUS. Extracted reporter citation: 211 S.W.3d 216. Docket: M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3195296 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat the court erred in not ordering Husband to formulate and sign the letter of instruction transferring assets from his IRA account; in not awarding a higher amount in transitional alimony; in failing to designate a party to be responsible for processing the qualified domestic relation orders for two retirement accounts; and in granting the divorce based on Husband‟s Amended Complaint for divorce. Wife asks this court to impose restrictions on Husband‟s ability to initiate future litigation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded RICHARD H. DI"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to formulate and sign the letter of instruction transferring assets from his IRA account; in not awarding a higher amount in transitional alimony; in failing to designate a party to be responsible for processing the qualified domestic relation orders for two retirement accounts; and in granting the divorce based on Husband‟s Amended Complaint for divorce. Wife asks this court to impose restrictions on Husband‟s ability to initiate future litigation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., delivered the opi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rice account in the amount of $30,000 awarded to Wife; (5) Skyline account valued at $15,000 to Wife; (6) Ricoh 401k valued at $29,000 to Wife; (7) Ricondo 401k valued at $7,000 to Husband; (8) Ricondo IRA valued at $3,500 to Wife; (9) Northwest Airlines pension plan, divided equally; (10) 2006 F-150, valued at $9,000 to Wife; (11) 2007 Ford Expedition valued at $7,500 to Husband; (12) 2008 Hummer valued at $7,500 to Wife;8 (13) Northwest Airlines Pension Plan, which the court divided equally; the court assigned no value to this asset. The court also included six personal bank accounts of nominal value in the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8ba7e41-8670-43ee-a0be-950f310650e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195296-3195296","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"211 S.W.3d 216","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): actors in Tenn. Code Ann. ' 36-4-121(c). Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 230. The trial court identified the marital assets and divided them as follows: (1) $80,000 on deposit with the court clerk, as proceeds of sale of real estate, divided equally; (2) Fidelity 401k with a balance of $56,000 and encumbered by a loan of $10,000 to Wife; 10 (3) Schwab 401k account in the amount of $98,000 awarded to Husband; (4) T-Rowe Price account in the amount of $30,000 awarded to Wife; (5) Skyline account valued at $15,000 to Wife; (6) Ricoh 401k valued at $29,000 to Wife; (7) Ricondo 401k valued at $7,000 to Husband; (8) Ri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3195360 Extracted reporter citation: 487 U.S. 312. Docket: COA15-185. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3195360 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: am L. Sitton, Jr., Attorney at Law, by William L. Sitton, Jr.; and Brendle Law Firm, PLLC, by Andrew S. Brendle, for defendant. GEER, Judge. Plaintiff Craig Steven Smith appeals from the trial court's equitable distribution judgment, three corresponding qualified domestic relations orders, and a permanent child support and custody order. Plaintiff primarily argues on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay his children's private school tuition without finding that his children have a reasonable need for private schooling that a public school education cannot provide. Because the parties' combined yearly income SMITH V"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ospective child support, and an unequal distribution of the marital property in her favor. The trial court entered a final equitable distribution pretrial order on 1 June 2010. In this order, the parties stipulated to classifying three of plaintiff's PwC retirement accounts -- a 401(k) plan, a \"Keough\" plan, and a \"RBAP\" plan -- as marital property until the date of separation and any post-separation accruals in those accounts as plaintiff's separate property. Also, on 23 December 2010, the parties -4- SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court stipulated in writing that they would equally divide the net equity received from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o withdraw it immediately, she also admitted that she received an initial distribution of $30,000.00 from her father's 401(k), and would continue receiving yearly distributions from this account, as well as \"approximately $700.00 a month\" from her mother's pension, which passed to her - 27 - SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court through her father's estate. Despite this evidence, the trial court's findings of fact regarding permanent child support erroneously lack any mention of these assets other than a vague allusion to her \"non-retirement assets and accounts\" as a partial impetus for reducing the monthly aw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6a2deb4-5692-4920-a019-91de175e603e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3195360-3195360","title":"CourtListener opinion 3195360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA15-185","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 U.S. 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): and an unequal distribution of the marital property in her favor. The trial court entered a final equitable distribution pretrial order on 1 June 2010. In this order, the parties stipulated to classifying three of plaintiff's PwC retirement accounts -- a 401(k) plan, a \"Keough\" plan, and a \"RBAP\" plan -- as marital property until the date of separation and any post-separation accruals in those accounts as plaintiff's separate property. Also, on 23 December 2010, the parties -4- SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court stipulated in writing that they would equally divide the net equity received from the sale of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3196650 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1039 WDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3196650 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: MAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2016 Gary L. Folmar (\"Husband\") appeals from the June 8, 2015 order granting Linda M. Folmar's (\"Wife\") petition for clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\").1 Wife seeks to dismiss the appeal as untimely and also requests attorney's fees incident to litigating this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we deny Wife's motions to dismiss and for counsel fees, and we affirm the trial court's order. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 \"A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: arried on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement which included a paragraph that the parties would equally divide the amounts paid into Husband's 401(k) retirement account provided by his employer, Your Building Centers (\"YBC\"). Marriage Settlement Agreement, 6/27/14, at unnumbered 5, ¶ D. The agreement specified that the parties agreed \"to execute a [QDRO] evidencing the equal division of this asset, which QDRO will be approved by the Court and presented to Standard Insurance Company2 upon completion.\" Id. On July 2,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: __________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 \"A QDRO . . . is a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the [pension] plan.\" Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Berrington v. Berrington, 633 A.2d 589, 591 n.3 (Pa. 1993)). J-S17023-16 The record reflects that Husband and Wife were married on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78611582-8c00-4962-9f9b-61e48c263f54","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3196650-3196650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3196650","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1039 WDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): were married on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement which included a paragraph that the parties would equally divide the amounts paid into Husband's 401(k) retirement account provided by his employer, Your Building Centers (\"YBC\"). Marriage Settlement Agreement, 6/27/14, at unnumbered 5, ¶ D. The agreement specified that the parties agreed \"to execute a [QDRO] evidencing the equal division of this asset, which QDRO will be approved by the Court and presented to Standard Insurance Company2 upon completion."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3197762 Extracted case name: BACKUS v. BACKUS. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3197762 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: therefore, it is at this time ordered that this spousal maintenance award shall NOT be modifiable for any reason. The decree also awarded each party various other property and one-half of the Boeing and Orange County pensions pursuant to the \"pre-approved\" Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") filed with the court. The Orange County pension payments terminate upon Husband's death, but 1 There is no explanation in the record or appellate briefs regarding the remaining 20 percent of Husband's Social Security benefits. 3 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court upon Wife's death become payable to her estate. Wife's payments from the B"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng 9.38 percent and Husband receiving 90.62 percent; and (2) Husband's Social Security 2 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court benefits, with Wife receiving 30 percent and Husband receiving 50 percent.1 The Agreement also stated: The division of these retirement accounts and assets is for the purpose of providing Wife with a spousal maintenance/ property equalization payment in the sum of $3,300 per month. The division of the assets is not in addition to the spousal maintenance/equalization payment. ¶3 The parties then presented the family court with a proposed consent decree that referred to the Agreement. The consen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ents being required thereafter: Wife's death; Husband's death; Wife's remarriage or cohabitation. The Agreement divided Husband's Boeing and Orange County pensions equally between the two spouses. It also set forth an unequal division of (1) Husband's USMC pension, with Wife receiving 9.38 percent and Husband receiving 90.62 percent; and (2) Husband's Social Security 2 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court benefits, with Wife receiving 30 percent and Husband receiving 50 percent.1 The Agreement also stated: The division of these retirement accounts and assets is for the purpose of providing Wife with a spous"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f456d9-4870-4947-b847-b8283409a240","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3197762-3197762","title":"CourtListener opinion 3197762","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: it is at this time ordered that this spousal maintenance award shall NOT be modifiable for any reason. The decree also awarded each party various other property and one-half of the Boeing and Orange County pensions pursuant to the \"pre-approved\" Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") filed with the court. The Orange County pension payments terminate upon Husband's death, but 1 There is no explanation in the record or appellate briefs regarding the remaining 20 percent of Husband's Social Security benefits. 3 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court upon Wife's death become payable to her estate. Wife's payments from the B"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3198279 Extracted reporter citation: 90 S.W.3d 10. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198279 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o each have retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appellee's attorney agreed and consented to the written decree on behalf of their clients, evidenced by their signatures on the decree. The decree was signed by the trial court judge and filed of record. On March 1, 2014, appellant withdrew a lump-sum payout of hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on December 19, 2012. The parties appeared before the trial court on December 5, 2012, to recite their agreed terms into the record and to gain approval from the trial court. The written decree provided in pertinent part: 10. The parties hereto each have retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): he trial court's later denial of appellant's petition is not advanced as an issue on appeal. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 233 the agreement, and appellant's attorney was asked to correct any misstatements. Regarding appellant's LOPFI retirement and appellee's 401K retirement account, appellee's attorney queried appellee: \"He's gonna get half of yours and you're gonna get half of his?\" Appellee responded, \"That's correct.\" At the conclusion of the recited agreement, appellant's attorney wanted to \"clarify a few things,\" and in particular \"the retirement accounts, by each party are marital, it will be divided as of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73ec1991-742b-4900-ae45-3721579feed9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198279-3198279","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 10","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appellee's attorney agreed and consented to the written decree on behalf of their clients, evidenced by their signatures on the decree. The decree was signed by the trial court judge and filed of record. On March 1, 2014, appellant withdrew a lump-sum payout of hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3198632 Extracted reporter citation: 859 A.2d 511. Docket: 1147 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198632 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: FC-2012-021531-D1 BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz (\"Husband\"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's (\"Wife\"), Marriage Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 16. Employment Benefits. The parties hereto have reached agreement regarding the retaining of and distribution of their respective employment benefits as follows: * * * B. Wife's retirement. The parties agree that all of the marital portion of Wife's retirement account(s) and/or pension plan(s) through her employment with Lycoming County shall be divided between the parties such that Wife will receive Fifty-Five Percent (55%) of the martial portion and Husband will receive Forty-Five (45%) of the martial portion pursuant to current law. For purposes of determining the marital portion, the parties agree that they we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz (\"Husband\"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's (\"Wife\"), Marriage Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter alia, to the following facts: \"[T]hey entered into a [MSA] *"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de322de7-2b9b-4d90-9a6f-7cc1446b491b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198632-3198632","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198632","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1147 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"859 A.2d 511","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1531-D1 BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz (\"Husband\"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's (\"Wife\"), Marriage Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3198639 Extracted case name: TRKULA v. TRKULA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198639 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The trial court's determination that the Agreement was complete is supported by the parties' representation to the settlement judge that there was nothing else to discuss about the Agreement af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s not support Mother's argument that there were property issues left unresolved in the Agreement. In her objections to the proposed Decree filed in the family court, Mother contended that there were unresolved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s argument that there were property issues left unresolved in the Agreement. In her objections to the proposed Decree filed in the family court, Mother contended that there were unresolved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37dc9955-4de2-4c85-b0af-8e0e7e6e9d8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3198639-3198639","title":"CourtListener opinion 3198639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): solved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The trial court's determination that the Agreement was complete is supported by the parties' representation to the settlement judge that there was nothing else to discuss about the Agre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eb79cf1-6429-42e6-a64a-92e0a6516744","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167","title":"CourtListener opinion 3200167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3200167 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3200167 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eb79cf1-6429-42e6-a64a-92e0a6516744","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167","title":"CourtListener opinion 3200167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eb79cf1-6429-42e6-a64a-92e0a6516744","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167","title":"CourtListener opinion 3200167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cient to pay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eb79cf1-6429-42e6-a64a-92e0a6516744","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167","title":"CourtListener opinion 3200167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On August 19, 2013, Jeffrey filed a motion to vacate the judgment for dissolution of marriage pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eb79cf1-6429-42e6-a64a-92e0a6516744","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3200167-3200167","title":"CourtListener opinion 3200167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"521614e0-4e3d-4b50-9a9d-e180a495773f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139","title":"CourtListener opinion 3201139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35","extracted_reporter_citation":"976 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3201139 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nolder. Extracted reporter citation: 976 S.W.2d 856. Docket: sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3201139 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"521614e0-4e3d-4b50-9a9d-e180a495773f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139","title":"CourtListener opinion 3201139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35","extracted_reporter_citation":"976 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"521614e0-4e3d-4b50-9a9d-e180a495773f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139","title":"CourtListener opinion 3201139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35","extracted_reporter_citation":"976 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (West 2005) (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9); see also TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.04(d), (e). 6 situation that necessitated an attorney's services by her own negligence in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order after the 1993 hearing, that attorney fees are not recoverable under Section 9.205 of the Texas Family Code5 under the facts of this case, and that the award of attorney fees was barred by res judicata since no attorney fees were awarded in the 1993 hearing. However, at trial Lee did not object to the testimony of Holoubek's counsel regarding attorney f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"521614e0-4e3d-4b50-9a9d-e180a495773f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139","title":"CourtListener opinion 3201139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35","extracted_reporter_citation":"976 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to recover her share of Lee's retirement benefits that had not been divided in their divorce decree. After a very short hearing before the bench, the County Court at Law in Rusk County awarded Holoubek judgment for $76,935.68, representing her share of the retirement benefits Lee received upon his retirement in 2006, plus a reasonable rate of return for nine years, and imposed a lien on Lee's retirement accounts. In addition, the trial court awarded Holoubek attorney fees in the amount of $30,774.27. After the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, Lee appealed. Lee complains that there is legally and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"521614e0-4e3d-4b50-9a9d-e180a495773f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3201139-3201139","title":"CourtListener opinion 3201139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35","extracted_reporter_citation":"976 S.W.2d 856","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (West 2005) (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9); see also TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.04(d), (e). 6 situation that necessitated an attorney's services by her own negligence in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order after the 1993 hearing, that attorney fees are not recoverable under Section 9.205 of the Texas Family Code5 under the facts of this case, and that the award of attorney fees was barred by res judicata since no attorney fees were awarded in the 1993 hearing. However, at trial Lee did not object to the testimony of Holoubek's counsel regarding attorney f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3202604 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIA HEATH-CLARK AND RICHARD ALAN CLARK Upon the Petition of JULIA HEATH-CLARK. Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.W.2d 279. Docket: 15-0525. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3202604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judge. Husband appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a declaratory order and his application for an order nunc pro tunc to amend the parties' qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Kodi A. Brotherson of Becker & Brotherson Law Offices, Sac City, for appellant. Thomas P. Graves of Graves Law Firm, P.C., Clive, for appellee. Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. Richard Clark appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a declaratory order and his application for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: domestic relations order (QDRO). Richard maintains the QDRO should be amended to reflect the intent of the parties at the time they entered the dissolution decree. Specifically, he contends the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (\"IPERS\") calculates retirement benefits in a way neither party expected or intended and, as a result, Julia Clark receives more of his retirement benefit than intended. I. Richard and Julia married on May 24, 1970. They dissolved their marriage by stipulated decree on September 23, 2002. In pertinent part, the decree provides: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that [Julia] s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: substantive order. See Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer, [838 A.2d 1026, 1028 (Conn. Ct. App. 2004)] 2 \"Because of certain anti-alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code, a QDRO must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce.\" Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 647–48 (citing Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768–71 (Md. 1989)). \"ERISA does not require a QDRO to be a part of the actual judgment in a case.\" In re Marriage of Bruns, 535 N.W.2d 157, 162 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), and Rohrbeck,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bde5905-b26b-4675-8143-3650bb8398b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202604-3202604","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0525","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.W.2d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: dministrator to make certain specified payments to the ex-spouse.2 See id.; see also Breslin v. Synnott, 54 A.3d 525, 527 (Vt. 2012) (citing 2 B. Turner, Equitable Division of Property § 6:20, at 113 (3d ed. 2005)). A QDRO is defined in relevant part by [ERISA] as a domestic relations order \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). In order for the QDRO to be qualified—for the Q to be added to the DRO—"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3202606 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONALD L. SEALS AND JACQUELYN F. MIHM SEALS Upon the Petition of DONALD L. SEALS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 14-1348. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3202606 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: his name. The court also allocated the banking and cash investment accounts between the parties. Ultimately, the court ordered Jackie to pay Don a property equalization payment in the amount of $386,181.10 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be paid out of, at Jackie's election, either her Salaried RSP or her Automation RSP. The court also ordered Jackie be responsible for paying the outstanding loans against her Salaried RSP but allowed her a credit in the property distribution, finding the loans constituted a marital debt. Additionally, the court found Don was \"under employed consid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: al, Jackie made contributions to her retirement plans in the amount of $73,282.30. 8 Don and Jackie both testified the rental home Don was residing in could bring rent in the amount of $900 to $1100 per month. 7 With regard to the division of the parties' retirement accounts, the court distributed to Jackie the accounts in her name and to Don the accounts in his name. The court also allocated the banking and cash investment accounts between the parties. Ultimately, the court ordered Jackie to pay Don a property equalization payment in the amount of $386,181.10 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: make the mortgage payments for the large loan at Farmers State Bank but were still in arrears and the bank had threatened foreclosure. The parties also accumulated substantial retirement savings throughout their twenty-seven-year marriage. Jackie held a pension and two 401(k) accounts with her employer, Rockwell Collins. At the time of trial, Jackie's Rockwell Collins Salaried Retirement Savings Plan (Salaried RSP) was valued at $579,584.233 and her Rockwell Collins Automation Retirement Savings Plan 1 The parties held the marital home and the Davenport rental home in joint tenancy. Jackie held title to all f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3cd84b9-5e9a-4a7f-85db-aa0f8fe3c00b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3202606-3202606","title":"CourtListener opinion 3202606","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-1348","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): eals the economic provisions of the district court's decree dissolving his marriage to Jacquelyn Mihm Seals, as amended by the court's subsequent ruling regarding the parties' posttrial motions. Don contends the district court erred in (1) valuing Jackie's 401(k) at the time of separation instead of at the time of trial; (2) calculating child support by imputing income to him; and (3) failing to award him attorney fees after Jackie backed out of a proposed settlement agreement. Jackie requests appellate attorney fees. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Don a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3203256 Extracted reporter citation: 487 F3d 317. Docket: 324146 Van Buren Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203256 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ent agreement and the divorce judgment provided that plaintiff was awarded 50 percent of defendant's defined benefit plan that accrued during the marriage.4 The settlement agreement indicated that three years after entry of the judgment of divorce, an amended QDRO \"shall enter\" awarding plaintiff 100 percent \"of said account,\" with plaintiff to immediately withdraw the funds, pay income taxes, and then \"apply the remaining balance to the indebtedness on the [landscaping and tree farm business],\" i.e., the $64,000 debt.5 This provision did not state whether it pertained to the defined benefit plan or the defined contr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: installment on defendant's $64,000 debt. 4 The division of the defined contribution and defined benefit plans was to be made pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs); there are no QDROs in the record. The settlement agreement stated that both retirement plans were held by defendant through his employer Pfizer. 5 Immediately following the quoted language about applying the withdrawn retirement funds to the remaining balance, the settlement agreement stated, \"A QDRO shall be entered by submission of amended QDRO under the 7-day Rule. (This payment shall be applied to the next annual payment due.) No additional Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 504 US 753, 765; 112 S Ct 2242; 119 L Ed 2d 519 (1992), the United States Supreme Court, construing the Bankruptcy Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., held that \"a debtor's interest in an ERISA- qualified pension plan may be excluded from the property of the bankruptcy estate[.]\" We also note that a 401(k) account is generally exempt in bankruptcy. 11 USC 522(d)(10)(E); see also MCL 600.5451(1)(l) (applicable if debtor chooses state exemption scheme). -4- when the debtor proved an inability to pay the debt or when a discharge would benefit the debtor more than it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c27922e-2a92-4d7c-9336-f8f9f97968f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203256-3203256","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324146 Van Buren Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"487 F3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ined benefit plans.\"); 26 USC 401(k); 29 USC 1002(34). 11 In Patterson v Shumate, 504 US 753, 765; 112 S Ct 2242; 119 L Ed 2d 519 (1992), the United States Supreme Court, construing the Bankruptcy Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., held that \"a debtor's interest in an ERISA- qualified pension plan may be excluded from the property of the bankruptcy estate[.]\" We also note that a 401(k) account is generally exempt in bankruptcy. 11 USC 522(d)(10)(E); see also MCL 600.5451(1)(l) (applicable if debtor chooses state exemption scheme). -4- when the debtor proved a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3203286 Extracted case name: SICKLER v. SICKLER. Extracted reporter citation: 808 N.W.2d 867. Docket: S-15-594. 1. Contempt:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203286 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court denied the \"request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences.\" The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award of the IRA by decreasing Madeline's - 525 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports SICKLER v. SICKLER Cite as 293 Neb. 521 award by $3,100 and increasing Steven's award by $3,100. Steven appealed the order but later dismissed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: were divorced in April 2001. As part of the property division, the court awarded to Madeline 18.6 percent of an IRA held under Steven's name. The dissolution decree listed the amount of the award to Madeline as $45,786. The court denied the \"request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences.\" The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed the \"request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences.\" The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award of the IRA by decreasing Madeline's - 525 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports SICKLER v. SICKLER Cite as 293 Neb. 521 award by $3,100 and increasing Steven's award by $3,100. Steven appealed the order but later dismissed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c8e8fdc-985b-422f-95a3-87b792161c09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203286-3203286","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203286","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-15-594. 1. Contempt:","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Debt,\" as stated in state constitutional prohibitions of imprisonment for debt, is generally viewed as an obligation to pay money from the debtor's own resources, which arose out of a consensual transaction between the creditor and the debtor. 12. Divorce: Property Division: Constitutional Law: Contempt: Debtors and Creditors. Contempt for noncompliance with a property division award in a dissolution decree does not originate in an action for the col- lection of debt, or from an obligation, through a consensual transaction between the creditor and the debtor, to pay money from the debtor's own resources. Therefore, enforc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3203370 Extracted reporter citation: 249 P.3d 1070. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203370 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: specified that 100% of the \"qualified portion\" of the BP pension would go to Patton, while the \"nonqualified portion\" would remain with Herring. But the agreement contained the caveat that the parties needed to verify that the BP pension could be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and that they \"must see numbers the percentages are based on[:] current values.\" The agreement next provided that 45% of the Fidelity Roth IRA account would be distributed to Patton and 55% would be distributed to Herring, but it explained that this transfer was subject to an equalization mechanism that the parties had created to deal with the uncert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tlement and the $464,346 that he received (and Patton lost) as a result of Patton's early benefit election, for a total of $609,000 of pension benefit to Herring. This unanticipated shift substantially changed the percentages of the originally estimated total retirement account that each party was to receive. -17- 7105 Now that Herring has received substantially more and Patton has received substantially less than the amounts that they bargained for, this disparity triggers the equitable reallocation provision relating to the BP pension and the Roth IRA \"escrowed\" funds. It was therefore error to conclude that the reallocation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , and Bolger, Justices. FABE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A divorcing couple reached a settlement agreement that was incorporated into a divorce decree issued by the superior court. The settlement provided that the qualified marital portion of the husband's pension would be distributed to the wife and the nonqualified portion would be distributed to the husband, subject to a provision for equitable reallocation if the values of those portions changed significantly. The settlement also described four firearms and ammunition that the husband would deliver to the wife. After the decree issued, the wife's portion of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d184ba89-126d-4aaa-87ba-dc73a862beda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3203370-3203370","title":"CourtListener opinion 3203370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 P.3d 1070","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that 100% of the \"qualified portion\" of the BP pension would go to Patton, while the \"nonqualified portion\" would remain with Herring. But the agreement contained the caveat that the parties needed to verify that the BP pension could be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and that they \"must see numbers the percentages are based on[:] current values.\" The agreement next provided that 45% of the Fidelity Roth IRA account would be distributed to Patton and 55% would be distributed to Herring, but it explained that this transfer was subject to an equalization mechanism that the parties had created to deal with the uncert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3205258 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CYNTHIA. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.3d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3205258 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: th from May 1, 2013 until May 1, 2016; $500 per month from May 1, 2016 until 2017; and zero beginning May 1, 2017. 3 The tentative statement of decision was not included in the record on appeal. 6 The trial court also ordered the parties to \"resolve the QDRO[4] issue by June 1, 2013,\" with respect to Huebner's representations that although Josefson was entitled to payment of $1,500 per month as her share of his City of Palo Alto pension she had failed to cooperate with finalizing the division of the pension. The court stated that Josefson's entitlement to a portion of Huebner's pension was a \"key factor\" in red"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: be possible for either party to live at the marital standard 4 A \" ‘QDRO is a subset of \"domestic relations orders\" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to \"receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]\" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840.) 7 of living in the future. The court noted that there was no credible evidence that Huebner had earned \"significant money\" due to his contractor's license. Josefson's March 2013 income and expense declaration was found not to be credible,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ental properties and believes that she is not able to meet her current expenses without receiving spousal support of $2,600 per month. According to Huebner, Josefson is now eligible to receive payments of $1,500 per month as her share of his City of Palo Alto pension. Huebner's current job title with the City of Palo Alto is manager, facilities maintenance, and his annual salary is $111,000. He submitted a November 16, 2012 income and expense declaration in which he stated that his gross monthly income as an employee of the City of Palo Alto is $9,259 and his total monthly expenses are $7,305. 4. Expert Witness Testim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3b97fff-4aff-4f6a-a626-e2187214afb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3205258-3205258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3205258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"203 Cal.App.3d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: trial court determined that he had the ability to pay spousal support for a period of time, but it would not be possible for either party to live at the marital standard 4 A \" ‘QDRO is a subset of \"domestic relations orders\" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to \"receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]\" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840.) 7 of living in the future. The court noted that there was no credible evidence that Huebner had earned \"significant money\" due"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3206207 Extracted case name: JACKSON v. MATTHEWS. Extracted reporter citation: 424 U.S. 319. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3206207 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Mark Matthews appeals from the superior court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"). For reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until Januar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: See Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 232 Ariz. 173, 175, ¶ 10 (App. 2013). ¶9 In Johnson v. Johnson, 195 Ariz. 389 (App. 1999), this court considered the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-1551(B) after an ex-wife waited more than 15 years to pursue her right to retirement benefits granted in a property settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the ex-wife was entitled to monthly installment payments of the ex-husband's retirement benefits, but the ex-wife did not sue to collect unpaid benefits until long after the retirement payments commenced. Id. at 390, ¶¶ 2, 5. Applying A.R.S. § 12-1551(B), this court held that the statute prec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): w, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until January 14, 2003, when the dissolution petition was served. The agreement stated that the QDROs would be \"prepared by attorney Richard Underwood with the cost equally divided between the parties,\" and that \"[b]oth parties agree to cooperate in the process of securing such benefits.\" ¶3 Approximately nine"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6a45e23-27e3-421e-bb3c-410c96c72ad4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3206207-3206207","title":"CourtListener opinion 3206207","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"424 U.S. 319","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urt MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Mark Matthews appeals from the superior court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"). For reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until Januar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5f28542-8ce3-4cc3-a00e-5931a316c339","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3207206 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207206 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5f28542-8ce3-4cc3-a00e-5931a316c339","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5f28542-8ce3-4cc3-a00e-5931a316c339","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s and Robert McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\\OPERS\\\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5f28542-8ce3-4cc3-a00e-5931a316c339","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rom the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations TYACK, J. {¶ 1} Christine McAdams and Robert McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\\OPERS\\\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5f28542-8ce3-4cc3-a00e-5931a316c339","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207206-3207206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\\OPERS\\\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3207224 Extracted case name: THOMPSON v. THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 892 P.2d 1053. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207224 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Cox Communications. The family court ordered the parties to have a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared to properly distribute the pension funds, with the preparation costs to be shared equally. The court also ordered Father to make an equalization payment of $3,911 following allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e Children and awarded the dependent child tax deduction for S.T. every year and for B.T. every two out of three years. ¶3 Within the decree, the family court ordered an equal division of the parties' community property, which included UPS common stock and a pension, and an equal division of their community debts to Bank of 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the family court's orders. See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): owing allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution decree, Mother filed a motion to amend the decree to address allocation of Father's 401(k) account. In September 2013, the court granted Mother's motion and ordered the 401(k) account to be split evenly between Mother and Father. ¶5 In February 2014, Father sold all of the UPS stock, including Mother's portion, without her knowledge. Additionally, he had not paid any portion of his share of the community debts, and both parties were unable to co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"95e3582b-bcc3-481f-8abe-feb35ad42ad1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207224-3207224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 P.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Cox Communications. The family court ordered the parties to have a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared to properly distribute the pension funds, with the preparation costs to be shared equally. The court also ordered Father to make an equalization payment of $3,911 following allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3207873 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 44 N.E.3d 721. Docket: 34A02-1509-DR-1433 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207873 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arded 23.5% of his CSRS pension to Mary. (Appellant's App. p. 12). Also, in order to effectuate an equal division of the estate, the trial court ordered Timothy to \"pay an equalizing judgment of $133,938.07 to [Mary]. [Timothy] shall pay this amount by [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] from his [TSP] account with any balance paid within [thirty] days thereafter.\" (Appellant's App. p. 16). 1 [7] On February 18, 2015, Mary filed a \"Motion to Correct Errors [sic],\" alleging, in relevant part, that the trial court erred by: awarding the marital real estate to Timothy; ordering Timothy to pay an equalizing judgment to Mary via"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y-one years to be a homemaker and raise the children\" as she \"had [s]ocial [s]ecurity earnings and was employed all but five (5) years of the marriage.\" (Appellant's App. pp. 25, 35). Thus, the trial court found that it \"fail[ed] to consider the overall retirement benefits to be received by both parties.\" (Appellant's App. p. 24). Finding that Mary will receive a monthly pension of $550 plus a monthly social security payment of $2,005, the trial court reduced Mary's share of Timothy's pension from 23.5% to 10% as of the filing date. The trial court noted that \"[i]f this division results in an unequal division of ve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ues on appeal, three of which we find dispositive and restate as follows: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the marital residence to Timothy; (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its valuation of Timothy's pension; and (3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding 10% of Timothy's pension to Mary and by failing to order that Mary is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On June 6, 1982, Timothy and Mary were married. The marriage produced two children, who are both now grown. Prior to the marriage, Timothy"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f7419d-68e6-4fb6-b3b1-05e973ff25cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3207873-3207873","title":"CourtListener opinion 3207873","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A02-1509-DR-1433 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: \"Motion to Correct Errors [sic],\" alleging, in relevant part, that the trial court erred by: awarding the marital real estate to Timothy; ordering Timothy to pay an equalizing judgment to Mary via a 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), \"pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a [QDRO].\" Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. However, a \"governmental plan\" is not governed by ERISA. Id.; see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(32), 1003(b)(1). As neither party has indicated that the QDRO wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ef54bbe-2ac2-4b9b-bf0a-71d4d55a82db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208741","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3208741 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3208741 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ef54bbe-2ac2-4b9b-bf0a-71d4d55a82db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208741","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ef54bbe-2ac2-4b9b-bf0a-71d4d55a82db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208741","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pursuant to a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, the terms of a stipulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ef54bbe-2ac2-4b9b-bf0a-71d4d55a82db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208741-3208741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208741","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pension valued as of the date of commencement of the divorce action, which was May 21, 1998. The difference in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3208870 Extracted case name: CARRANZA v. GONZALES. Extracted reporter citation: 9 P.3d 1046. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3208870 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r an order consistent with Kelly. BACKGROUND ¶2 During the marriage, both parties worked for the USPS. The 1995 divorce decree awarded each party one-half of the community interest in the other's USPS pension, to be distributed through a separately entered qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). 1 It was not until 2013, after both parties had retired, when Richard Gonzales (Husband) requested the court enter an order awarding him one-half of the community interest in Wife's pension. ¶3 Although both parties were employed by the USPS, Wife participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not include Social Security. Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 Irene Carranza (Wife) appeals from a family court order allocating the pension she earned as an employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS). The family court correctly applied Arizona Revised Statue (A.R.S.) § 25-211 as it existed at the time the parties divorced in 1995. However, the court erred when it failed to apply Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 9 P.3d 1046 (2000), in the 2015 order allocating Wife's pension. Accordingly,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: consistent with Kelly. BACKGROUND ¶2 During the marriage, both parties worked for the USPS. The 1995 divorce decree awarded each party one-half of the community interest in the other's USPS pension, to be distributed through a separately entered qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). 1 It was not until 2013, after both parties had retired, when Richard Gonzales (Husband) requested the court enter an order awarding him one-half of the community interest in Wife's pension. ¶3 Although both parties were employed by the USPS, Wife participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not include Social Security. Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34929353-2c6b-4ddc-8e3d-cf3d7770ec91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3208870-3208870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3208870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"9 P.3d 1046","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: er improperly awarded Husband a portion of her pension that was Wife's separate property. ¶6 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Merrill v. Merrill, 230 Ariz. 369, 372, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 880, 883 (App. 2012). At the time the decree was entered, community property was defined as all property acquired during the marriage. See 1998 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 280, § 3 (2nd Reg. Sess.) (adding language now found in current version of § 25-211 (A)(2)). The language Wife relies on was not part of § 25-211(A)(2) until 1998, three years after the parties' decree was entered. The legislature expressly stated that this change in st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10075bca-465e-48b9-91a2-665d7867ec13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199","title":"CourtListener opinion 3209199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3209199 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3209199 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10075bca-465e-48b9-91a2-665d7867ec13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199","title":"CourtListener opinion 3209199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10075bca-465e-48b9-91a2-665d7867ec13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199","title":"CourtListener opinion 3209199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cient to pay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10075bca-465e-48b9-91a2-665d7867ec13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199","title":"CourtListener opinion 3209199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On August 19, 2013, Jeffrey filed a motion to vacate the judgment for dissolution of marriage pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10075bca-465e-48b9-91a2-665d7867ec13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3209199-3209199","title":"CourtListener opinion 3209199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the \"marital share\" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3210648 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3210648 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ife\"), was receiving a greater monthly benefit from his pension than she was entitled to under the terms of the parties' martial settlement agreement (MSA) and controlling law. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") 1 consistent with this opinion. The parties divorced in 1995. They resolved the relevant issues in their divorce by entering into a MSA which was incorporated into the final 1 \"A QDRO is, in pertinent part, a ‘domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ets because it included post-dissolution income in calculating the husband's pension plan. Further, the court should have looked to the statutory provisions of sections 61.075(5)(a) (defining \"marital assets\") and 61.076(1) 3 (outlining the distribution of retirement plans upon dissolution of a marriage) to reach the correct ruling that the amended QDRO was not in compliance with the MSA and final judgment. §§ 61.075(5)(a), 61.076(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). More compelling, by the time the trial court entered the original QDRO, the Florida Supreme Court had rejected the \"deferred division of benefits\" calculation adopted in De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: appellee. DAMOORGIAN, J. David Storey (\"Former Husband\") appeals from an order denying his motion for relief from judgment. In his motion, Former Husband argued that appellee, Delfina Storey (\"Former Wife\"), was receiving a greater monthly benefit from his pension than she was entitled to under the terms of the parties' martial settlement agreement (MSA) and controlling law. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") 1 consistent with this opinion. The parties divorced in 1995. They resolved the relevant issues in their divorce by entering into a MSA which was incorpor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e89b6b5-f599-4d86-84dd-df0735f693d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3210648-3210648","title":"CourtListener opinion 3210648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Petitioner/Wife is entitled to 50% of the value of the Respondent/Husband's pension benefits accumulated through November 1994. All accumulations after November, 1994, belong to the Respondent/Husband. The parties agree to submit for execution a Qualified ERISA Section 206(d) Internal Revenue Code Section 414(p). The Order will then be submitted to the Federal Employees Pension Plan Administrator and if determined by the administrator that said plan is incomplete or in need of modification, the Order shall be adjusted as needed to accomplish this transfer and an amended Order submitted for execution by the C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3211267 Extracted reporter citation: 335 N.W.2d 503. Docket: of monthly checks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3211267 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: they exist as of October 25, 2001, which was the date of the original pre-hearing conference and the date of valuation set by Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. These accounts shall be awarded and distributed pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which shall be set forth in a separate document. . . . The [c]ourt shall retain jurisdiction to carry out and effectuate the assignment of said retirement benefits. The responsibility of preparing said QDRO shall be solely that of [husband]. It does not appear that [husband] has any vested pension or retirement accounts with cash value, however, if"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: addressing distribution of wife's benefits under the United States Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which she earned during her employment by the United States Postal Service from October 1980 until her retirement in January 2013. With respect to retirement benefits, the judgment and decree provided: [Husband] is awarded 50% of [wife]'s retirement and pension fund through her employment at United States Postal Service, as they exist as of October 25, 2001, which was the date of the original pre-hearing conference and the date of valuation set by Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. These accounts shall be awarded and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e Elmo, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KIRK, Judge Appellant-wife challenges the district court's denial of her motion to amend an order dividing her pension benefits following the dissolution of her marriage to respondent- husband. Because the order effectuates the intent of the parties, as expressed in their stipulated judgment and decree, we affirm. FACTS Appellant-wife Debra Kay Baxter and respondent-husband Leon Asle Baxter were married from June 1981 until April 2002, when the marriage was dissolved"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4f633cf-a0f1-43c9-8202-4d8d01e571d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3211267-3211267","title":"CourtListener opinion 3211267","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of monthly checks","extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.W.2d 503","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ns Court Order.\" For ease of reference, it is referred to as the DRO. Courts may review a plan administrator's determination that a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is \"qualified\" for purposes of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp., 776 N.W.2d 684, 693 (Minn. 2009); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) (2012 & Supp. 2014) (defining QDRO). However, CSRS is exempt from ERISA because it is a \"governmental plan.\" See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051 (2012) (exempting a \"governmental plan\" from ERISA); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) (2012) (defining \"governmental plan\")."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c739ef5-0dae-4386-b7a3-b0bbf98a79b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3212877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"680 F.3d 1377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3212877 Extracted case name: MALLEK v. US PER CURIAM. Extracted reporter citation: 680 F.3d 1377. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3212877 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c739ef5-0dae-4386-b7a3-b0bbf98a79b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3212877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"680 F.3d 1377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c739ef5-0dae-4386-b7a3-b0bbf98a79b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3212877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"680 F.3d 1377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Mr. Mallek, which would provide Mr. Mallek monthly payments guaranteed for 30 years and for the life of Mr. Mallek. The settlement agreement stated that the annuity payments were non-assignable. On June 6, 2008, a California state judge approved a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which was signed by Mr. Mallek and his former wife. Under the QDRO, Mr. Mallek assigned a portion of his monthly annuity payments to Ms. Mallek. On August 18, 2015, Mr. Mallek filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that DHS breached the settlement agreement by allowing the assignment of a portion of his monthly annuity payment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c739ef5-0dae-4386-b7a3-b0bbf98a79b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3212877-3212877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3212877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"680 F.3d 1377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , which would provide Mr. Mallek monthly payments guaranteed for 30 years and for the life of Mr. Mallek. The settlement agreement stated that the annuity payments were non-assignable. On June 6, 2008, a California state judge approved a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which was signed by Mr. Mallek and his former wife. Under the QDRO, Mr. Mallek assigned a portion of his monthly annuity payments to Ms. Mallek. On August 18, 2015, Mr. Mallek filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that DHS breached the settlement agreement by allowing the assignment of a portion of his monthly annuity payment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3213433 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SETH H. CRAWFORD AND TRICIA L. FAIRCHILD Upon the Petition of SETH H. CRAWFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 15-1694. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3213433 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: failed to properly consider the section 598.21(5) factors; should have attributed a negative net worth to Tricia at the time of the parties' marriage due to her student loans; should have required the transfer of the equalization payment to occur through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO); improperly determined that Seth dissipated marital assets by taking out a loan against his 401(k); and should not have ordered that Seth's pension be divided. He also contends the equalization sum should have been fixed in the amount of $177,839. Specifically, Seth claims the district court failed to consider: 1. This was a short marriage."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s rulings regarding custody, visitation, child support, alimony, attorney fees, division of personal property, and the amount of the equalization payment. We modify the decree to eliminate the award of alimony and the award and requirement to divide Seth's pension account. On all other issues raised, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Seth Crawford and Tricia Fairchild were married in 2011, but had maintained a romantic relationship since 2001. The parties have one child, E.K.C., born in 2013. Seth is a high-level executive at Deere & Company (Deere), where he has worked for eighteen years. Seth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s due to the loss of his yearly bonus1 because he failed to timely report a romantic relationship with another Deere employee within the same sub-organization. At the time of trial, in addition to income from his base salary, Seth had assets including: a 401(k) account; a Deere pension; tax-deferred income accounts; stock options from Deere; brokerage accounts with UBS and E-Trade; 1 Seth testified the bonus would have been greater than his annual salary. 3 a Health Savings Account; an ownership interest in two limited liability corporations—3501 LEB, L.L.C. and 960 W River Center, L.L.C.—for purposes of ow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8d4f051-7754-4a6d-803f-b67c8293bff5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3213433-3213433","title":"CourtListener opinion 3213433","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1694","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: properly consider the section 598.21(5) factors; should have attributed a negative net worth to Tricia at the time of the parties' marriage due to her student loans; should have required the transfer of the equalization payment to occur through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO); improperly determined that Seth dissipated marital assets by taking out a loan against his 401(k); and should not have ordered that Seth's pension be divided. He also contends the equalization sum should have been fixed in the amount of $177,839. Specifically, Seth claims the district court failed to consider: 1. This was a short marriage."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"771dd25b-34ec-4ae7-a7f8-4d9b21cfb219","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324105 Delta Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 F3d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3214258 Extracted reporter citation: 397 F3d 103. Docket: 324105 Delta Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3214258 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"771dd25b-34ec-4ae7-a7f8-4d9b21cfb219","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324105 Delta Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 F3d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"771dd25b-34ec-4ae7-a7f8-4d9b21cfb219","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324105 Delta Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 F3d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: but gave defendant until December 31, 2013, to file a motion to reinstate spousal support. LaBute received the couple's property in Alger County and $9,484.20 from defendant's Roth IRA. Her attorney, Russell Hall, drew up a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to transfer the money from the IRA to LaBute. Defendant refused to sign the QDRO, causing Hall to file a motion seeking authorization. Hall informed defendant of the hearing in a letter dated November 8, 2013, and in that letter invited defendant to call his office with any questions about the QDRO. Defendant telephoned Hall on November 20, 2013, two day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"771dd25b-34ec-4ae7-a7f8-4d9b21cfb219","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214258-3214258","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214258","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324105 Delta Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 F3d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ia e-mails to accuse LaBute of HIPAA violations if she did not accede to his requests. The purpose of defendant's threatening e-mails was to obtain pecuniary advantage in the form of $1,000 in monthly child support and a waiver of LaBute's lawful claim to his retirement account, and to force her to file a petition with the court that would result in defendant's joint custody of their son. The threats were clearly designed to force LaBute to abandon legal rights granted her by the JOD. Harris, 495 Mich at 136. Thus, a reasonable juror could find that defendant acted with the requisite malice and violated MCL 750.213 when, in reckle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3214585 Extracted reporter citation: 873 S.W.2d 368. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3214585 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 50% portion of the income accrued from June 6, 1993 until July 17, 1998, of the Public Sector Service Center Deferred Compensation account no. [XXX], arising out of Michael A. Sarro's employment with VIA Metropolitan Transit, more particularly defined in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court.\" -2- 04-15-00392-CV TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). Michael responds that Joyce is not entitled to a new trial because she failed to timely request the reporter's record, and Joyce was at fault regarding the destruction of the reporter's notes. In Piotrowski v. Minns, the Texas Supreme Court addressed an issue similar to the issue pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: gned until April 1, 2015. In a separate letter order, the trial court concluded the date of the divorce was August 17, 2004. On May 1, 2015, Joyce filed a motion for new trial stating she wanted to appeal the division of the marital estate as to Michael's retirement benefits and pension; 1 however, the court reporter informed her that the reporter's notes from the 2004 trial had been destroyed. Joyce attached to her motion for new trial email correspondence from the court reporter informing Joyce's attorney that she was only required to keep her notes for three years, and the notes no longer existed. The trial court denied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . In a separate letter order, the trial court concluded the date of the divorce was August 17, 2004. On May 1, 2015, Joyce filed a motion for new trial stating she wanted to appeal the division of the marital estate as to Michael's retirement benefits and pension; 1 however, the court reporter informed her that the reporter's notes from the 2004 trial had been destroyed. Joyce attached to her motion for new trial email correspondence from the court reporter informing Joyce's attorney that she was only required to keep her notes for three years, and the notes no longer existed. The trial court denied the motion f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec328574-cf58-48b9-8e2d-6071ec0709ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3214585-3214585","title":"CourtListener opinion 3214585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"873 S.W.2d 368","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on of the income accrued from June 6, 1993 until July 17, 1998, of the Public Sector Service Center Deferred Compensation account no. [XXX], arising out of Michael A. Sarro's employment with VIA Metropolitan Transit, more particularly defined in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court.\" -2- 04-15-00392-CV TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). Michael responds that Joyce is not entitled to a new trial because she failed to timely request the reporter's record, and Joyce was at fault regarding the destruction of the reporter's notes. In Piotrowski v. Minns, the Texas Supreme Court addressed an issue similar to the issue pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3215890 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3215890 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y the parties, that the \"[MSA] shall not be merged in the Final Judgment but shall survive same.\" Additionally, the final judgment retained jurisdiction to enter further orders to enforce the MSA and to enter appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). The MSA included provisions regarding two retirement plans that were listed as the H. Bruce Jones M.D., P.A. Money Purchase Pension Plan and the H. Bruce Jones M.D., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan. It also stated that the Husband agreed to be the trustee of both plans. In 2005, the trial court entered QDROs regarding both retirement plans. Both QDROs state"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lant, Edward Golden (\"the Curator\"), as curator for the Estate of Katherine Jones (\"the Wife\"), appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint, with prejudice, filed against Appellee, Carol Jones (\"the Trustee\"), as the successor trustee for certain retirement plans for H. Bruce Jones (\"the Husband\"). We reverse the trial court after determining the trial court erred in dismissing the initial complaint with prejudice without giving at least one opportunity to amend, and in not transferring the complaint to another division of the court, if the complaint should have been filed as an independent action. Factual Backgr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT EDWARD I. GOLDEN, as Curator of the Estate of Katherine Jones, Appellant, v. CAROL ANN JONES, as Successor Trustee of the H. Bruce Jones, M.D., P.A. Money Purchase Plan and the H. Bruce Jones, M.D., P.A. Pension and Profit Sharing Plan, Appellees. No. 4D14-3063 [June 22, 2016] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Laura M. Watson, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 99- 013968 (42). William H. Glasko of Golden Glasko & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law, P.A., Pembroke Pines, for appel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bd9c92-6da0-4c7c-b1ae-a01239ae1998","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3215890-3215890","title":"CourtListener opinion 3215890","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: icate the Complaint seeks something other than a judgment for damages. In summarizing the relief sought, the Complaint \"requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the Trustee enforcing and compelling compliance with the August 2, 2005 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (the Judgments), determining the current value of the Disputed Assets[,] . . . awarding prejudgment interest, . . . and, if the Trustee is found in civil contempt, order compensatory and/or coercive fines, and granting any additional relief which this Court deems appropriate.\" We agree that the Complaint was subject to dismissal because it is unclear wha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4fbe1d2-25c5-4f52-adde-8d9d7df40f96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472","title":"CourtListener opinion 3217472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"454 S.W.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3217472 Extracted case name: CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOSKINS. Extracted reporter citation: 454 S.W.3d 289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3217472 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4fbe1d2-25c5-4f52-adde-8d9d7df40f96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472","title":"CourtListener opinion 3217472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"454 S.W.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4fbe1d2-25c5-4f52-adde-8d9d7df40f96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472","title":"CourtListener opinion 3217472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"454 S.W.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: count. Count Two: The Amer Dissolution {¶ 15} Hoskins agreed to represent Gretchen Puff Amer in the dissolution of her marriage in 2010. During the representation, he drafted a separation agreement providing that \"legal counsel for the Wife should draft the QDRO's [Qualified Domestic Relations Orders] necessary to divide the marital retirement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO assets.\" (Brackets sic.) Hoskins failed to prepare a QDRO and failed to respond to Amer's numerous requests that he do so. {¶ 16} On these facts, the board found that Hoskins neglected Amer's legal matter in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, failed t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4fbe1d2-25c5-4f52-adde-8d9d7df40f96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3217472-3217472","title":"CourtListener opinion 3217472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"454 S.W.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The Amer Dissolution {¶ 15} Hoskins agreed to represent Gretchen Puff Amer in the dissolution of her marriage in 2010. During the representation, he drafted a separation agreement providing that \"legal counsel for the Wife should draft the QDRO's [Qualified Domestic Relations Orders] necessary to divide the marital retirement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO assets.\" (Brackets sic.) Hoskins failed to prepare a QDRO and failed to respond to Amer's numerous requests that he do so. {¶ 16} On these facts, the board found that Hoskins neglected Amer's legal matter in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, failed to reasonably communicate with her in v"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3218794 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 900 N.E.2d 454. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3218794 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed an order stating that Wife \"shall be named Alternative Payee\" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension within sixty days. [4] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey (\"the Estate\") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 4(A)(2). Husband's pension is clearly marital property subject to distribution in the dissolution action. See Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98(b)(1) & (2) (defining \"property\" for purposes of marital dissolution to include \"a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits\" and \"the right to receive pension or retirement benefits that are not forfeited upon termination of employment or that are vested . . . but that are payable after the dissolution of marriage[.]\"); In re Marriage of Nickels, 834 N.E.2d 1091, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that pension benefits are marital property if the benefits are not forfeit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: YS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Michael D. Sears Adam J. Sedia Jacquelyn S. Pillar Rubino, Ruman, Crosmer, & Polen Crist, Sears, & Zic, LLP Dyer, Indiana Munster, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ArcelorMittal USA, LLC June 30, 2016 Pension Plan, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant, 45A03-1509-DR-1537 Appeal from the Lake Circuit v. Court The Honorable George C. Paras, Jackie L. Hickey, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Robert G. Vann, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 45C01-0912-DR-990 Mathias, Judge. [1] Arcelormittal USA, LLC Pension Plan (\"the Plan\") filed a motio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de6d834-9215-4f0b-8cb3-f3d531ef5698","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3218794-3218794","title":"CourtListener opinion 3218794","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"900 N.E.2d 454","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r stating that Wife \"shall be named Alternative Payee\" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension within sixty days. [4] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey (\"the Estate\") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7c0c357-7240-4870-b707-1666f83a7cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053","title":"CourtListener opinion 3219053","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Q. And there is a paragraph","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3219053 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Q. And there is a paragraph. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3219053 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7c0c357-7240-4870-b707-1666f83a7cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053","title":"CourtListener opinion 3219053","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Q. And there is a paragraph","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7c0c357-7240-4870-b707-1666f83a7cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053","title":"CourtListener opinion 3219053","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Q. And there is a paragraph","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: led a Notice of Removal in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, asserting that the matter was removable because Appellants sought to recover life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. The federal court dismissed the state claims and ordered Appellants to show cause why their injunctive relief claims should not be dismissed. The matter was ultimately dismissed without prejudice. {¶ 4} On August 7, 2013, Appellants filed a Verified Complaint against Rita -3- Thomason, alleging tortious interference with contract (Count I), civil con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7c0c357-7240-4870-b707-1666f83a7cd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3219053-3219053","title":"CourtListener opinion 3219053","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Q. And there is a paragraph","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: [SIC] in state court, Mr. McNamee breached a duty of competence owed to Plaintiffs. *** 9. In addition, Mr. McNamee's original claims against Ms. Thomason, as well as a second lawsuit against Ms. Thomason, rested upon claims that Ms. Thomason knew of a domestic relations order that required Noel Berridge to name his children as the beneficiaries of his employment- related insurance policy, though the order arose in a case between Noel Berridge and Sharon Berridge to which Ms. Thomason was not a party. * * * 10. Mr. McNamee failed to meet the minimum standard of care of a reasonably competent Ohio attorney when he limited h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3261018 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3261018 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Box 1122 Hope, AR 71801-1122 Dear Representative Wood: This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Act 1143 of 1993, which is codified at A.C.A. §§ 9-18-101 through -103 (Repl. 1993). This act authorized chancery courts to enter qualified domestic relations orders to reach retirement annuities and benefits of retirement plans. Your specific questions regarding Act 1143 are as follows: 1. In calculating the amount of benefits to be received by an Alternate Payee pursuant to the approved QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order), are the member's accrued annuity benefits calculated using the member's salary as of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: your request for an opinion regarding Act 1143 of 1993, which is codified at A.C.A. §§ 9-18-101 through -103 (Repl. 1993). This act authorized chancery courts to enter qualified domestic relations orders to reach retirement annuities and benefits of retirement plans. Your specific questions regarding Act 1143 are as follows: 1. In calculating the amount of benefits to be received by an Alternate Payee pursuant to the approved QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order), are the member's accrued annuity benefits calculated using the member's salary as of the date of his actual retirement and the years of service as of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: authorized chancery courts to enter qualified domestic relations orders to reach retirement annuities and benefits of retirement plans. Your specific questions regarding Act 1143 are as follows: 1. In calculating the amount of benefits to be received by an Alternate Payee pursuant to the approved QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order), are the member's accrued annuity benefits calculated using the member's salary as of the date of his actual retirement and the years of service as of the date of divorce; or, are the benefits calculated using the member's salary as of the date of the divorce and his years of service as of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a7b3d0e-4f06-4306-98e7-dbe5e888212b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3261018-3261018","title":"CourtListener opinion 3261018","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ope, AR 71801-1122 Dear Representative Wood: This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Act 1143 of 1993, which is codified at A.C.A. §§ 9-18-101 through -103 (Repl. 1993). This act authorized chancery courts to enter qualified domestic relations orders to reach retirement annuities and benefits of retirement plans. Your specific questions regarding Act 1143 are as follows: 1. In calculating the amount of benefits to be received by an Alternate Payee pursuant to the approved QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order), are the member's accrued annuity benefits calculated using the member's salary as of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 33223 Extracted reporter citation: 936 F.2d 777. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 33223 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Adair To \"bring focus\" to the case, the district Enterprises, Inc., was the plan administrator. court appointed two special masters with ex- In 1992, a state court entered a qualified do- pert ise in the intricacies of ERISA law. The mestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding masters produced reports helpful to the court James Hatteberg's accrued benefits under the in its final determinations. Later, at the court's plan. This first QDRO entitled plaintiff to a request, plaintiff and defendants filed respec- small portion of the plan's assets, so she ap- tive motions for summary judgment. The pealed. The method of cal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ted rights, engaged in Plaintiff and James Hatteberg were parties prohibited transactions, and committed vio- to a contentious divorce in 1992. Among the lations of the Employee Retirement Income community property divided between them Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). were the assets owed to James Hatteberg un- der the Red Adair Profit Sharing Plan; Adair To \"bring focus\" to the case, the district Enterprises, Inc., was the plan administrator. court appointed two special masters with ex- In 1992, a state court entered a qualified do- pert ise in the intricacies of ERISA law. The mestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regardi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 66 turning the proceedings into a \"post-mortem\" (5th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff claims that of the divorce. consideration of the Bowen factors is mandatory in the Fifth Circuit. In Riley v. There is, however, no good evidence that AMR Corp. Subsidiaries Supersaver 401(k) the court was biased against plaintiff or the Capital Accumulation Plan, 209 F.3d 780, subject matter of her claims. Although the 781-82 (5th Cir. 2000), we wrote that a court court apparently showed irritation with a num- \"should consider and explicate the five Bowen ber of plaintiff's arguments and accusations, factors, and should do so without giving the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92d770c0-4c77-4ef5-85b8-912ba095698a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-33223-33223","title":"CourtListener opinion 33223","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"936 F.2d 777","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ; fourth, that the the trust, the district court was correct in con- administrator failed to operate the plan in ac- cluding that her claim is barred by a two-year cordance with plan documents by improperly statute of limitations. ERISA does not requiring any domestic relations order to be explicitly provide a statute of limitations final before it could be qualified; and fifth, by period for actions under § 1132(c). Because engaging in prohibited transactions with Ful- there was no Fifth Circuit authority on the bright attorneys through unreasonable issue, the district court looked to analogous compensation for legal services \"unnecess"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbbc87b6-7b73-41c1-a96e-214769ec7845","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3324125 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3324125 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbbc87b6-7b73-41c1-a96e-214769ec7845","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbbc87b6-7b73-41c1-a96e-214769ec7845","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0.00 as of June 22, 1990. Although the defendant has offered to pay off the balance of any arrearage presently owed to the plaintiff by withdrawing funds from his profit sharing retirement plan, which is managed by his former employer, withdrawal requires a qualified domestic relations order pursuant to specific Internal Revenue Service regulations. This is not a remedy for the court to attempt to fashion sua sponte. Nor is this court inclined to assume the role of advocate for either side and attempt to negotiate an acceptable order with the manager of the plan. Great familiarity with the nature of the plan is required in order to avoid advers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbbc87b6-7b73-41c1-a96e-214769ec7845","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s, an arrearage is found due and owning to the petitioner in the amount of $1,050.00 as of June 22, 1990. Although the defendant has offered to pay off the balance of any arrearage presently owed to the plaintiff by withdrawing funds from his profit sharing retirement plan, which is managed by his former employer, withdrawal requires a qualified domestic relations order pursuant to specific Internal Revenue Service regulations. This is not a remedy for the court to attempt to fashion sua sponte. Nor is this court inclined to assume the role of advocate for either side and attempt to negotiate an acceptable order with the mana"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbbc87b6-7b73-41c1-a96e-214769ec7845","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324125-3324125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: June 22, 1990. Although the defendant has offered to pay off the balance of any arrearage presently owed to the plaintiff by withdrawing funds from his profit sharing retirement plan, which is managed by his former employer, withdrawal requires a qualified domestic relations order pursuant to specific Internal Revenue Service regulations. This is not a remedy for the court to attempt to fashion sua sponte. Nor is this court inclined to assume the role of advocate for either side and attempt to negotiate an acceptable order with the manager of the plan. Great familiarity with the nature of the plan is required in order to avoid advers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3324650 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3324650 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rmanent periodic alimony of $460.00 per week. Said alimony shall be modifiable as to amount but non-modifiable as to duration and shall terminate on death of either party or wife's remarriage . . . the UTC pension and UTC 401K plan shall be divided equally by QDRO orders . . . the husband shall maintain the wife as beneficiary on CIGNA and Northwestern Mutual policies in the total amount of $377,000.00 for so long as he has an alimony obligation. Said coverage shall be subject to modification in the future . . . The court heard testimony from the parties and reviewed all exhibits entered. Based on this evidence, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ovided inter alia , the following: Husband to pay permanent periodic alimony of $460.00 per week. Said alimony shall be modifiable as to amount but non-modifiable as to duration and shall terminate on death of either party or wife's remarriage . . . the UTC pension and UTC 401K plan shall be divided equally by QDRO orders . . . the husband shall maintain the wife as beneficiary on CIGNA and Northwestern Mutual policies in the total amount of $377,000.00 for so long as he has an alimony obligation. Said coverage shall be subject to modification in the future . . . The court heard testimony from the parties and review"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): a , the following: Husband to pay permanent periodic alimony of $460.00 per week. Said alimony shall be modifiable as to amount but non-modifiable as to duration and shall terminate on death of either party or wife's remarriage . . . the UTC pension and UTC 401K plan shall be divided equally by QDRO orders . . . the husband shall maintain the wife as beneficiary on CIGNA and Northwestern Mutual policies in the total amount of $377,000.00 for so long as he has an alimony obligation. Said coverage shall be subject to modification in the future . . . The court heard testimony from the parties and reviewed all exhibi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1b37516-860c-4666-bb58-50bb088ab81a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3324650-3324650","title":"CourtListener opinion 3324650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: bonus that was variable. Soon after his separation from his employer, he began to draw on his pension. Currently, he receives a monthly sum of $1924.00, a sum slightly lower than he was eligible for, that he elected in order to provide his current wife with a survivor benefit. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion to Modify and within 3 days of receiving the approximately $53,000.00 net from Pratt and Whitney for separating, the defendant repaid a loan from his 401K, gave his children financial gifts, paid a small amount of back taxes and paid his current wife approximately $27,000.00 for a loan he had taken from her earlier"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3327834 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3327834 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iscellaneous Assets: The wife shall retain all title and interest in the following assets as listed on her financial affidavit: (a) all bank accounts valued at $23,447; (b) Tax CT Page 3044 Deferred Assets, Pension and Retirement Plans valued at $51,510. 8. QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER: The wife's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to implement the 75 percent interest assigned to the wife of the husband's tax deferred assets, shown on the husband's affidavit as $118,180.26 and $127,151.50 in the wife's proposed distribution. The actual value of these assets are to be divided 75 percent to the wife and 25 pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r respective financial affidavits. 7. Miscellaneous Assets: The wife shall retain all title and interest in the following assets as listed on her financial affidavit: (a) all bank accounts valued at $23,447; (b) Tax CT Page 3044 Deferred Assets, Pension and Retirement Plans valued at $51,510. 8. QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER: The wife's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to implement the 75 percent interest assigned to the wife of the husband's tax deferred assets, shown on the husband's affidavit as $118,180.26 and $127,151.50 in the wife's proposed distribution. The actual value of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sted on their respective financial affidavits. 7. Miscellaneous Assets: The wife shall retain all title and interest in the following assets as listed on her financial affidavit: (a) all bank accounts valued at $23,447; (b) Tax CT Page 3044 Deferred Assets, Pension and Retirement Plans valued at $51,510. 8. QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER: The wife's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to implement the 75 percent interest assigned to the wife of the husband's tax deferred assets, shown on the husband's affidavit as $118,180.26 and $127,151.50 in the wife's proposed distribution. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84fc5ea5-95c9-428f-a9c5-817e6470815e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3327834-3327834","title":"CourtListener opinion 3327834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: us Assets: The wife shall retain all title and interest in the following assets as listed on her financial affidavit: (a) all bank accounts valued at $23,447; (b) Tax CT Page 3044 Deferred Assets, Pension and Retirement Plans valued at $51,510. 8. QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER: The wife's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to implement the 75 percent interest assigned to the wife of the husband's tax deferred assets, shown on the husband's affidavit as $118,180.26 and $127,151.50 in the wife's proposed distribution. The actual value of these assets are to be divided 75 percent to the wife and 25 pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3329464 Docket: to contact them mindful of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3329464 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y the Court in its October 1, 1998 decision is now in place and the Plaintiff covered and that arrangements to discharge any arrearage due in payments thereon has been accomplished by the Defendant. See also the order of Mihalakos, J., in that regard. The Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have been accomplished as to the 401K and SSIP and pension benefits. That any delay in arranging for the Cobra benefits was due to processing lags. Matters of joint custody have gone along without incident and the two boys are in good health. Medical coverage is in place for the benefit of the two minor children through the Defendant's employment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nd that arrangements to discharge any arrearage due in payments thereon has been accomplished by the Defendant. See also the order of Mihalakos, J., in that regard. The Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have been accomplished as to the 401K and SSIP and pension benefits. That any delay in arranging for the Cobra benefits was due to processing lags. Matters of joint custody have gone along without incident and the two boys are in good health. Medical coverage is in place for the benefit of the two minor children through the Defendant's employment. A wage execution is in place with the Defendant's employer a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the memorandum of decision. 4. That the Defendant did not pay the expenses at 587 Vauxhall St., Waterford during the period of his occupancy until CT Page 4681 date of vacating, that the Defendant did not comply with order of the Court as to the Defendant's 401K and Defendant's SSIP. 5. That the Defendant committed fraud on his financial affidavit filed at the time of the dissolution hearing. The Court notes the appearance of the parties before Mihalakos, J., on February 1, 1999 relative to matters pertaining to Cobra benefits. See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 transcript of the proceedings. The Court also notes an a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28e792fd-7d97-4242-baba-e737e441c807","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3329464-3329464","title":"CourtListener opinion 3329464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to contact them mindful of the","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t in its October 1, 1998 decision is now in place and the Plaintiff covered and that arrangements to discharge any arrearage due in payments thereon has been accomplished by the Defendant. See also the order of Mihalakos, J., in that regard. The Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have been accomplished as to the 401K and SSIP and pension benefits. That any delay in arranging for the Cobra benefits was due to processing lags. Matters of joint custody have gone along without incident and the two boys are in good health. Medical coverage is in place for the benefit of the two minor children through the Defendant's employment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16275080-5341-4c8d-8c05-055a48122b4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331381","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3331381 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3331381 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16275080-5341-4c8d-8c05-055a48122b4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331381","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16275080-5341-4c8d-8c05-055a48122b4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331381","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: convey to the plaintiff $38,000 of his Solomon Smith Barney IRA, and he shall retain the balance. The CHI pension as listed on the defendant's financial affidavit shall be divided equally between the parties. Value to be determined as of date of division. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared if necessary. The defendant shall retain his Great American 403b account as listed on his financial affidavit. The plaintiff shall retain the funds claimed by the defendant as overpayment of child support. The parties shall each retain their respective savings and checking accounts and such other accounts listed on their financial af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16275080-5341-4c8d-8c05-055a48122b4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331381","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: avit. The plaintiff shall retain her ownership in the Solomon Smith Barney IRA listed on her financial affidavit. CT Page 12480 The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff $38,000 of his Solomon Smith Barney IRA, and he shall retain the balance. The CHI pension as listed on the defendant's financial affidavit shall be divided equally between the parties. Value to be determined as of date of division. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared if necessary. The defendant shall retain his Great American 403b account as listed on his financial affidavit. The plaintiff shall retain the funds claimed by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16275080-5341-4c8d-8c05-055a48122b4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331381-3331381","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331381","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the plaintiff $38,000 of his Solomon Smith Barney IRA, and he shall retain the balance. The CHI pension as listed on the defendant's financial affidavit shall be divided equally between the parties. Value to be determined as of date of division. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared if necessary. The defendant shall retain his Great American 403b account as listed on his financial affidavit. The plaintiff shall retain the funds claimed by the defendant as overpayment of child support. The parties shall each retain their respective savings and checking accounts and such other accounts listed on their financial af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2038f066-0e87-49e9-8032-205fa0c0a0f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331514","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3331514 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3331514 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2038f066-0e87-49e9-8032-205fa0c0a0f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331514","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2038f066-0e87-49e9-8032-205fa0c0a0f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331514","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t 55 and $144,212 for retirement at 65. Presently, it will pay him $3,110. per mouth (after the Social Security deduction) upon his retirement. In finding these values the court accepts undisputed evaluations presented by Barry Kaplan, and, by Karen McDonald, Retirement Benefits Manager, State Employees Retirement Commission. The pension is administered by the State. The funds are held by the State until such time as they are paid out to the retired employee. These retirement benefits have accrued as a result of both Mr. McGran and Mrs. McGran's respective marital labors. The parties disagree as to whether the SERS pension itsel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2038f066-0e87-49e9-8032-205fa0c0a0f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3331514-3331514","title":"CourtListener opinion 3331514","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e court finds that the alimony order should take into account the plaintiff's ability and past record of overtime work. It does not require him to maintain a level of overtime which had been tantamount to two 7 hour overtime days every week, on average. The pension of the plaintiff with the State of Connecticut is vested; it is an annuity. It functions as a replacement for social security and a hazardous duty pension. It is a marital asset subject to division under § 46b-81 . Krafick v. Krafick , 234 Conn. 783 , 798 (1995). The present value of the plaintiff's interest in his pension is $717,171 for a current ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3332160 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3332160 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: breakdown, the defendant's liaison with Lucy Bonacassio was the major cause of the breakdown becoming irretrievable. The City of Waterbury Pension Benefits Administrator, Palma Brustat, testified that the city's plan is non-qualified under ERISA and that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) would not be honored. The defendant receives $471.73 monthly as pension income, (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) and the plaintiff's surviving spouse rights terminate upon a dissolution of the marriage to the retiree. The court views the defendant's pension and the income CT Page 6275 therefrom as an asset of the marriage acquired during the marriage before t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: The defendant advanced no funds, however. The court finds that, although the plaintiff's behavior contributed to the breakdown, the defendant's liaison with Lucy Bonacassio was the major cause of the breakdown becoming irretrievable. The City of Waterbury Pension Benefits Administrator, Palma Brustat, testified that the city's plan is non-qualified under ERISA and that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) would not be honored. The defendant receives $471.73 monthly as pension income, (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) and the plaintiff's surviving spouse rights terminate upon a dissolution of the marriage to the retiree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ontributed to the breakdown, the defendant's liaison with Lucy Bonacassio was the major cause of the breakdown becoming irretrievable. The City of Waterbury Pension Benefits Administrator, Palma Brustat, testified that the city's plan is non-qualified under ERISA and that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) would not be honored. The defendant receives $471.73 monthly as pension income, (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) and the plaintiff's surviving spouse rights terminate upon a dissolution of the marriage to the retiree. The court views the defendant's pension and the income CT Page 6275 therefrom as an asset of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cf00f6c-725a-45fa-86b8-4a653d00ea6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332160-3332160","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332160","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , the defendant's liaison with Lucy Bonacassio was the major cause of the breakdown becoming irretrievable. The City of Waterbury Pension Benefits Administrator, Palma Brustat, testified that the city's plan is non-qualified under ERISA and that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) would not be honored. The defendant receives $471.73 monthly as pension income, (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) and the plaintiff's surviving spouse rights terminate upon a dissolution of the marriage to the retiree. The court views the defendant's pension and the income CT Page 6275 therefrom as an asset of the marriage acquired during the marriage before t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7a2c9c2-d2ff-4822-b4ab-e142d3512b10","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3332493 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3332493 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7a2c9c2-d2ff-4822-b4ab-e142d3512b10","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7a2c9c2-d2ff-4822-b4ab-e142d3512b10","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e wife indemnify and hold him harmless in connection with the mortgage and all other liabilities of the property. Failure to transfer the property by quitclaim deed will allow the Court to transfer the property pursuant to 46b-81 (b) CT Page 11415 3. That a QDRO (a qualified domestic relations order) issue dividing the existing profit sharing plan with Communispond valued at $951,000 equally between the parties so that the wife is the owner of approximately $475,500 in pension benefits. (The one-half value is the value at the date of this decision.) 4. That the Putnam Trust Certificate of Deposit in the approxima"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7a2c9c2-d2ff-4822-b4ab-e142d3512b10","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ant to 46b-81 (b) CT Page 11415 3. That a QDRO (a qualified domestic relations order) issue dividing the existing profit sharing plan with Communispond valued at $951,000 equally between the parties so that the wife is the owner of approximately $475,500 in pension benefits. (The one-half value is the value at the date of this decision.) 4. That the Putnam Trust Certificate of Deposit in the approximate sum of $90,000 as shown on the wife's affidavit shall be the wife's. 5. That the Putnam Trust Certificate of Deposit in joint names of the plaintiff and defendant as shown on the wife's affidavit shall be divided e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7a2c9c2-d2ff-4822-b4ab-e142d3512b10","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3332493-3332493","title":"CourtListener opinion 3332493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd hold him harmless in connection with the mortgage and all other liabilities of the property. Failure to transfer the property by quitclaim deed will allow the Court to transfer the property pursuant to 46b-81 (b) CT Page 11415 3. That a QDRO (a qualified domestic relations order) issue dividing the existing profit sharing plan with Communispond valued at $951,000 equally between the parties so that the wife is the owner of approximately $475,500 in pension benefits. (The one-half value is the value at the date of this decision.) 4. That the Putnam Trust Certificate of Deposit in the approximate sum of $90,000 as shown on the wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c03d2b2b-2dda-4350-a5f0-2820cca8f053","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3333069 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3333069 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c03d2b2b-2dda-4350-a5f0-2820cca8f053","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c03d2b2b-2dda-4350-a5f0-2820cca8f053","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he defendant's retirement including his pension. Since the plaintiff will remain the legal wife of the defendant, the court assumes her spousal interest, whatever it may be, is unaffected. In any event, the court cannot entertain the plaintiff's request for a QDRO absent any evidence, cf. Lake v. Lake , 49 Conn. App. 89 . The plaintiff also requests a life insurance policy be obtained by the defendant. The Lake case holding prevents the court from entertaining such request. The defendant does list a $6,000 term life insurance policy. The court elects to enter no order regarding it. The court also notes that the defen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c03d2b2b-2dda-4350-a5f0-2820cca8f053","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333069-3333069","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333069","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it at Chase Manhattan, 400 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb valued by the defendant at $38,533.31. U.S. Savings Bonds valued at $3,500, the building lot 50% interest, a 1986 Plymouth for $500 and household furniture valued at $3,000. No value is assigned to his pension. No evidence was introduced by either party concerning the particulars of the defendant's retirement including his pension. Since the plaintiff will remain the legal wife of the defendant, the court assumes her spousal interest, whatever it may be, is unaffected. In any event, the court cannot entertain the plaintiff's request for a QDRO absent any eviden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a581452-c14d-4820-a85d-cb70ac35a4bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333850","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3333850 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3333850 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a581452-c14d-4820-a85d-cb70ac35a4bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333850","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a581452-c14d-4820-a85d-cb70ac35a4bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333850","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at the plaintiff failed to report on his financial affidavit his vested interest in a pension fund established by his former employer, the Prudential Insurance Company. The plaintiff shall assign to the defendant a 50% interest in the pension fund by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the preparation and implementation of this order. 12. The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for his own debts. He shall indemnify and hold harmless the defendant from any obligations due the Internal Revenue Service or the State of Connecticut for any income taxes due for the years of marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a581452-c14d-4820-a85d-cb70ac35a4bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333850","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the Dodge Van so that the defendant may CT Page 11127-H register it or a substitute vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles. 11. The testimony presented indicated that the plaintiff failed to report on his financial affidavit his vested interest in a pension fund established by his former employer, the Prudential Insurance Company. The plaintiff shall assign to the defendant a 50% interest in the pension fund by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the preparation and implementation of this order. 12. The plaintiff shall be solely responsibl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a581452-c14d-4820-a85d-cb70ac35a4bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3333850-3333850","title":"CourtListener opinion 3333850","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: intiff failed to report on his financial affidavit his vested interest in a pension fund established by his former employer, the Prudential Insurance Company. The plaintiff shall assign to the defendant a 50% interest in the pension fund by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the preparation and implementation of this order. 12. The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for his own debts. He shall indemnify and hold harmless the defendant from any obligations due the Internal Revenue Service or the State of Connecticut for any income taxes due for the years of marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3334555 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3334555 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: w the present periodic alimony award on or about June 1, 1995. 2. PENSION The husband shall assign and transfer all his right, title and interest in the Caltex pension/retirement plan with a present value of approximately $37,000 to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The effective date of transfer shall be the date of the dissolution decree. 3. REAL ESTATE a. MARITAL RESIDENCE: The wife cannot afford to maintain the marital home and does not want it transferred to her. Therefore, the wife shall quitclaim her interest in the marital residence to the husband, subject to all existing encumbrances, and the husband sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s on or before May 1st of each year hereafter. Upon proper motion, the court shall review the present periodic alimony award on or about June 1, 1995. 2. PENSION The husband shall assign and transfer all his right, title and interest in the Caltex pension/retirement plan with a present value of approximately $37,000 to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The effective date of transfer shall be the date of the dissolution decree. 3. REAL ESTATE a. MARITAL RESIDENCE: The wife cannot afford to maintain the marital home and does not want it transferred to her. Therefore, the wife shall quitclaim her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ths is about $3,000 a month. The court finds his net monthly income is approximately $2,250. The husband lists assets on his financial affidavit of $97,500 with liabilities of $294,200. The marital home costs about $3,300 monthly to maintain. His retirement pension plan is valued at $37,000, with a monthly benefit of between $471.26 and $542.19 due him at age 55. The wife has recently taken a temporary job as a secretary earning $9.00 an hour giving her a net weekly income of $230.00, which the court has considered in its periodic alimony award. For over twenty years, the wife cared for the parties' two sons and t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0da08b48-3e67-4a86-b92e-886458b7cc9e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3334555-3334555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3334555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ent periodic alimony award on or about June 1, 1995. 2. PENSION The husband shall assign and transfer all his right, title and interest in the Caltex pension/retirement plan with a present value of approximately $37,000 to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The effective date of transfer shall be the date of the dissolution decree. 3. REAL ESTATE a. MARITAL RESIDENCE: The wife cannot afford to maintain the marital home and does not want it transferred to her. Therefore, the wife shall quitclaim her interest in the marital residence to the husband, subject to all existing encumbrances, and the husband sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3335137 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3335137 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marital home. He shall pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the marital property and hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnified thereon. 5. The plaintiff is to receive 50% of the defendant's pension benefit as of the date of the dissolution by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is to transfer one-half of the Savings Plan to the plaintiff as valued through the date of the dissolution. \\. . . [U]nder 46b-81 the date of dissolution is the appropriate date on which to value the parties assets. . . .\\\" Bornemann v. Bornemann"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ial education programs. When he was 11 years of age she began working part-time holding various positions as a clerk in retail businesses. She expected to start employment in a hairdressing salon after the trial. Today she has no medical insurance, pension or retirement plan related to her own employment. The defendant is employed as a senior manufacturing engineer at Sikorsky where he earns $65,335 per year. He participates in the Sikorsky pension plan for which he ascribes no value on his financial affidavit and the UTC Employee 401K plan which he lists as having a value of $225,000. He had netted $15,000 after withdrawing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: red in special education programs. When he was 11 years of age she began working part-time holding various positions as a clerk in retail businesses. She expected to start employment in a hairdressing salon after the trial. Today she has no medical insurance, pension or retirement plan related to her own employment. The defendant is employed as a senior manufacturing engineer at Sikorsky where he earns $65,335 per year. He participates in the Sikorsky pension plan for which he ascribes no value on his financial affidavit and the UTC Employee 401K plan which he lists as having a value of $225,000. He had netted $15,000"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d642e80-219f-4bb8-a70b-ffd706214726","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335137-3335137","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335137","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ated to her own employment. The defendant is employed as a senior manufacturing engineer at Sikorsky where he earns $65,335 per year. He participates in the Sikorsky pension plan for which he ascribes no value on his financial affidavit and the UTC Employee 401K plan which he lists as having a value of $225,000. He had netted $15,000 after withdrawing from the 401K plan in violation of the automatic orders during the pendency of the action. He retained $12,000 at home in the form of cash and neglected to list that amount on his financial affidavit. In addition to the defendant's pension and 401K plans, the parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9adabd68-52cd-4f59-82da-bd72048143a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3335206 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3335206 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9adabd68-52cd-4f59-82da-bd72048143a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9adabd68-52cd-4f59-82da-bd72048143a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: etain their respective interest in the condominium #503 (LLL) Kaanapali Shores, Maui, Hawaii. Other Property 1. The defendant shall assign and transfer to the plaintiff $55,000 of his three various pension plans, which transfer shall be made pursuant to a QDRO. The court shall CT Page 1171 retain jurisdiction until said QDRO is approved. In the event the defendant's pensions are non-qualified, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $55,000 to the plaintiff's plan, or an IRA or comparable plan. Personal Property 1. The parties shall mutually agree as to a division of their personalty and pers"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9adabd68-52cd-4f59-82da-bd72048143a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3335206-3335206","title":"CourtListener opinion 3335206","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Street (E.S.S.L.L.) Kailua, Hawaii 2. Each party shall retain their respective interest in the condominium #503 (LLL) Kaanapali Shores, Maui, Hawaii. Other Property 1. The defendant shall assign and transfer to the plaintiff $55,000 of his three various pension plans, which transfer shall be made pursuant to a QDRO. The court shall CT Page 1171 retain jurisdiction until said QDRO is approved. In the event the defendant's pensions are non-qualified, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $55,000 to the plaintiff's plan, or an IRA or comparable plan. Personal Property 1. The parties shall mutua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb4d5f12-70f1-4764-be2d-f431b75fd4ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550","title":"CourtListener opinion 3336550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3336550 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3336550 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb4d5f12-70f1-4764-be2d-f431b75fd4ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550","title":"CourtListener opinion 3336550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb4d5f12-70f1-4764-be2d-f431b75fd4ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550","title":"CourtListener opinion 3336550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lue of $262,000 under (G) and the wife lists the value at $58,064.87 under (G) of her affidavit, and her vested and unvested stock options of $23,099, shall all be divided equally between the parties. The attorney for the plaintiff shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to effectuate these transfers. BANK ACCOUNTS The husband shall retain his bank accounts with the Newtown Savings Bank valued at $8600. The wife shall retain her account with Mid-America. ALIMONY The husband shall pay the wife periodic alimony of $1,000 a month. Alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the wife's remarriage, or her coha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb4d5f12-70f1-4764-be2d-f431b75fd4ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550","title":"CourtListener opinion 3336550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: which may arise. CONDOMINIUM The wife shall maintain title to the condominium exclusively and hold the husband harmless from any liability relative thereto. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND RETIREMENT AND STOCK OPTIONS All of the deferred compensation and pension plans listed in both of their financial affidavits (the husband lists the value of $262,000 under (G) and the wife lists the value at $58,064.87 under (G) of her affidavit, and her vested and unvested stock options of $23,099, shall all be divided equally between the parties. The attorney for the plaintiff shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Rela"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb4d5f12-70f1-4764-be2d-f431b75fd4ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3336550-3336550","title":"CourtListener opinion 3336550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2,000 under (G) and the wife lists the value at $58,064.87 under (G) of her affidavit, and her vested and unvested stock options of $23,099, shall all be divided equally between the parties. The attorney for the plaintiff shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to effectuate these transfers. BANK ACCOUNTS The husband shall retain his bank accounts with the Newtown Savings Bank valued at $8600. The wife shall retain her account with Mid-America. ALIMONY The husband shall pay the wife periodic alimony of $1,000 a month. Alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the wife's remarriage, or her coha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b6ebe5-e3b3-4d8f-9f32-0dd9620841d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3337114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3337114 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3337114 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b6ebe5-e3b3-4d8f-9f32-0dd9620841d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3337114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b6ebe5-e3b3-4d8f-9f32-0dd9620841d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3337114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pay the sum of $1.00 per year as periodic alimony until the plaintiff's remarriage or the death of either party. 4. The plaintiff is awarded 50% of the defendant's retirement benefit earned while he was employed at General Electric. The court will execute a QDRO approved by the administrator. The drafting shall be done by the plaintiff's attorney and reviewed by the defendant's attorney. 5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be equally liable for any remaining joint debts incurred on credit cards, and each shall indemnify the other for any payments that have exceeded 50% of the total debt, but only after the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b6ebe5-e3b3-4d8f-9f32-0dd9620841d2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3337114-3337114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3337114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: storage, are awarded to the plaintiff as her sole property. 3. The defendant is ordered to pay the sum of $1.00 per year as periodic alimony until the plaintiff's remarriage or the death of either party. 4. The plaintiff is awarded 50% of the defendant's retirement benefit earned while he was employed at General Electric. The court will execute a QDRO approved by the administrator. The drafting shall be done by the plaintiff's attorney and reviewed by the defendant's attorney. 5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be equally liable for any remaining joint debts incurred on credit cards, and each shall indemnify the other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b4c76f5-fe43-4b01-a571-2c201b8cdaea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3338056 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3338056 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b4c76f5-fe43-4b01-a571-2c201b8cdaea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b4c76f5-fe43-4b01-a571-2c201b8cdaea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ntinuing, alimony shall increase to $350.00 per week and shall be payable until the earliest to occur of the following events: the death of either of the parties, the CT Page 604 plaintiff's remarriage or the date that the plaintiff receives payment under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at which time alimony shall terminate. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b4c76f5-fe43-4b01-a571-2c201b8cdaea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338056-3338056","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: alimony shall increase to $350.00 per week and shall be payable until the earliest to occur of the following events: the death of either of the parties, the CT Page 604 plaintiff's remarriage or the date that the plaintiff receives payment under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at which time alimony shall terminate. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3338233 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3338233 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: m the date of this decree, and shall be taxable to wife and deductible to husband for state and federal income tax purposes. The periodic alimony payments shall be secured by an immediate wage execution. The husband shall transfer to the wife, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, forty (40%) percent of his present interest in his state employment retirement/pension plan. The wife shall irrevocably designate the husband survivor beneficiary of her interest; he shall irrevocably designate her as survivor beneficiary of his remaining interest. The irrevocable CT Page 8716 designations shall termi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mortgage balance of about $2,600, leaving an equity of $147,600. In addition to the dwelling, and the lot on which it stands, are an additional 60 acres more or less. The husband has two vehicles, with a total equity of $500, $900 in the bank and a pension/retirement plan through his state employment which would provide him with $480 per month if he retired at age 62 (February 1, 1994), which he does not plan to do, and $625 per month at age 65. He may also be eligible for disability retirement at 60 percent of his annual salary should he be determined to be disabled. The husband shows $3,393 in liabilities on his financial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , less a mortgage balance of about $2,600, leaving an equity of $147,600. In addition to the dwelling, and the lot on which it stands, are an additional 60 acres more or less. The husband has two vehicles, with a total equity of $500, $900 in the bank and a pension/retirement plan through his state employment which would provide him with $480 per month if he retired at age 62 (February 1, 1994), which he does not plan to do, and $625 per month at age 65. He may also be eligible for disability retirement at 60 percent of his annual salary should he be determined to be disabled. The husband shows $3,393 in liabilities o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f2ddad-a703-4e3f-b290-9ddc6b034518","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338233-3338233","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of this decree, and shall be taxable to wife and deductible to husband for state and federal income tax purposes. The periodic alimony payments shall be secured by an immediate wage execution. The husband shall transfer to the wife, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, forty (40%) percent of his present interest in his state employment retirement/pension plan. The wife shall irrevocably designate the husband survivor beneficiary of her interest; he shall irrevocably designate her as survivor beneficiary of his remaining interest. The irrevocable CT Page 8716 designations shall termi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3338238 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3338238 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: AND TO PARTIALLY VACATE THIS COURT'S AUGUST 17, 1995 ORDER This matter is before the court on Eugene Murphy's motions for reconsideration and to partially vacate the court's August 17, 1995 decision, that ordered Mr. Murphy and Frances Murphy to enter into a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The issue presented by Mr. Murphy's moving papers is whether this court has the ability to order the parties to enter into a QDRO, based on the 1985 dissolution order entered by Judge Ryan in accordance with the parties' separation agreement. Based on the testimony and arguments presented on November 17, 1995, the court reaffirms and republishes i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 17, 1995 decision, the court, after determining that the separation agreement was ambiguous, applied contractual construction principles to the document to find that Ms. Murphy CT Page 13391 was entitled to the status of a full beneficiary under Mr. Murphy's pension. Subsequent to the court's decision, the parties suggested that Ms. Murphy is entitled to only a 50 percent joint and survivor annuity under 26 U.S.C. § 417 (b)(1), since that percentage was all that the parties had bargained for in the separation agreement. Recognizing that the record was devoid of any evidence suggesting this fact, the court, on Nove"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tions at the time they executed the separation agreement. From that hearing, the court has gleaned that the intention of the parties was that Ms. Murphy be considered a 50 percent beneficiary of the joint and survivor annuity maintained by Mr. Murphy. Under ERISA, a QDRO \\`creates or recognizes the existence of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13f5ef74-6cbc-46f3-8489-b7ca0e5f4301","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338238-3338238","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: TIALLY VACATE THIS COURT'S AUGUST 17, 1995 ORDER This matter is before the court on Eugene Murphy's motions for reconsideration and to partially vacate the court's August 17, 1995 decision, that ordered Mr. Murphy and Frances Murphy to enter into a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The issue presented by Mr. Murphy's moving papers is whether this court has the ability to order the parties to enter into a QDRO, based on the 1985 dissolution order entered by Judge Ryan in accordance with the parties' separation agreement. Based on the testimony and arguments presented on November 17, 1995, the court reaffirms and republishes i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743e047e-42d0-48db-97a4-d6ce23b2a4a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3338763 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3338763 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743e047e-42d0-48db-97a4-d6ce23b2a4a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743e047e-42d0-48db-97a4-d6ce23b2a4a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o the judgment. The agreement resolved all issues, including custodial and financial matters between the parties, and apparently was approximately an equal division of assets. The defendant, however, refused to adhere to the agreement. He would not sign the QDRO papers until specifically ordered to do so by the Court following a contempt motion. In July 1998 (almost three years after the judgment) he moved to open the judgment claiming the plaintiff fraudulently concealed her intention to remarry and also claiming a mutual mistake in the agreement. His motion was denied, and he then unsuccessfully appealed from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743e047e-42d0-48db-97a4-d6ce23b2a4a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3338763-3338763","title":"CourtListener opinion 3338763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ght well remarry and, in fact the defendant has himself CT Page 6165 remarried since the dissolution. Whether it was within two or three months or years would seem to have little, if any, significance. The defendant's income is $790 weekly from a disability pension. He has no other liquid assets but does still maintain an equity interest in the family home together with his ex-wife. (She holds a $40,000 mortgage), but the defendant's equity interest has an approximate worth of $45,000. The plaintiffs net weekly income is approximately $500 weekly from her job and pension award and her equity interest in the family h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab6ba68d-0cb8-48fe-9740-c38da810d7f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3341299 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3341299 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab6ba68d-0cb8-48fe-9740-c38da810d7f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab6ba68d-0cb8-48fe-9740-c38da810d7f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: financial affidavit dated March 5, 1996 states his monthly net income to be $3,248.00. He failed a Captain's exam recently. The defendant may elect retirement at half pay after twenty years of service, (Plaintiff's Exhibit #4). The pension is not subject to a QDRO, 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (b)(1). He has contributed to the plan a total of $39,000.00 to the time of trial in March, 1996. CT Page 4213-KK The court has concluded that the marriage eroded during early 1993 and had broken down irretrievably by the Spring of 1993 when the plaintiff stated she wanted a divorce. The marriage was of eight years duration. The cau"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab6ba68d-0cb8-48fe-9740-c38da810d7f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341299-3341299","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: xhibit #2). The defendant's financial affidavit dated March 5, 1996 states his monthly net income to be $3,248.00. He failed a Captain's exam recently. The defendant may elect retirement at half pay after twenty years of service, (Plaintiff's Exhibit #4). The pension is not subject to a QDRO, 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (b)(1). He has contributed to the plan a total of $39,000.00 to the time of trial in March, 1996. CT Page 4213-KK The court has concluded that the marriage eroded during early 1993 and had broken down irretrievably by the Spring of 1993 when the plaintiff stated she wanted a divorce. The marriage was of eigh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e4e847a-d963-43ed-8946-8b0101101f6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3341620 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3341620 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e4e847a-d963-43ed-8946-8b0101101f6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e4e847a-d963-43ed-8946-8b0101101f6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3341620-3341620","title":"CourtListener opinion 3341620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y between the parties. 2. The stock holdings shall be split equally between the parties. 3. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in both of the defendant's pensions, i.e., in U.S. Steel Corporation and Metro North. Plaintiff's counsel will prepare the \\QDRO's\\\"."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c06d0a7-7196-4179-8a48-2449d7c5d2fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797","title":"CourtListener opinion 3342797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3342797 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3342797 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c06d0a7-7196-4179-8a48-2449d7c5d2fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797","title":"CourtListener opinion 3342797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c06d0a7-7196-4179-8a48-2449d7c5d2fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797","title":"CourtListener opinion 3342797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t $150. per week as alimony. The present arrearage of $180. is to be paid forthwith. 4. The defendant receive a 40% interest in the plaintiff's pension with the New Haven Police Department. Counsel for the CT Page 4706 defendant shall prepare the necessary \\QDRO\\\" documentation to accomplish this purpose."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c06d0a7-7196-4179-8a48-2449d7c5d2fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3342797-3342797","title":"CourtListener opinion 3342797","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ew Haven could be retained to provide these parties with supplemental income as they get older. The parties have not signified their interest in such a proposal. The court notes the wide disparity of income in favor of the plaintiff and his vested municipal pension plan. The defendant has nothing for her elder years. The parties will soon be in their fifties. The defendant's residence at Judson Avenue is badly in need of repair. It is therefore ordered that: 1. The plaintiff convey to the defendant all of his right, title and interest in and to the real property located at and known as 66 Judson Avenue, New Haven,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cef3d33c-ffe4-4a9d-a580-b7150235c6c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623","title":"CourtListener opinion 3343623","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3343623 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3343623 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cef3d33c-ffe4-4a9d-a580-b7150235c6c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623","title":"CourtListener opinion 3343623","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cef3d33c-ffe4-4a9d-a580-b7150235c6c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623","title":"CourtListener opinion 3343623","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed on December 13, 1993, the husband had $92,314.91 and the wife had $19,798.71 vested in their respective teacher pension accounts. The court ordered the husband to assign to the wife the amount necessary to equalize them as of the date of judgment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). It was the court's intention to have the Teachers Retirement Board transfer a sum certain from the husband's account to the wife's account so that both accounts would be equalized as of the date of judgment. In short, the court intended for the Teachers Board to transfer $36,257.62 (.392764) from the husband's account to the wife's account so that e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cef3d33c-ffe4-4a9d-a580-b7150235c6c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623","title":"CourtListener opinion 3343623","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: OPEN JUDGMENT On January 19, 1994, this court granted the above motion for the limited purpose of clarification of two orders entered in a judgment of dissolution entered on December 13, 1993 (Petroni, J.): 1. equalization of the plaintiff's (wife) teachers pension account, and, 2. a credit of $16,000.00 to plaintiff (wife) from the defendant's share of the equity in the marital home. At the hearing on January 19, 1994, the defendant husband conceded a $13,000.00 credit for a gift made to a friend from a $45,000.00 home equity loan which he alone obtained. His attorney argued that $3,000.00 was used for their daug"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cef3d33c-ffe4-4a9d-a580-b7150235c6c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3343623-3343623","title":"CourtListener opinion 3343623","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mber 13, 1993, the husband had $92,314.91 and the wife had $19,798.71 vested in their respective teacher pension accounts. The court ordered the husband to assign to the wife the amount necessary to equalize them as of the date of judgment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). It was the court's intention to have the Teachers Retirement Board transfer a sum certain from the husband's account to the wife's account so that both accounts would be equalized as of the date of judgment. In short, the court intended for the Teachers Board to transfer $36,257.62 (.392764) from the husband's account to the wife's account so that e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3344362 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3344362 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ffidavits (Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, 4) are valued at about $252,952.29, and the wife lists a value of $7,017 on her plan. These plans shall be divided equally between the parties. The attorney for the plaintiff may retain an actuary to prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO) to effectuate these transfers. Any fee required to prepare the QDROs shall be shared equally by the parties. The court shall retain jurisdiction until said QDROs are approved by the court. 3. Custody, Child Support and Visitation The parties shall have joint legal custody of their minor daughter, Sarah Makin, with the physical residence of the m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he is fifty. They are both able to work full-time. The court finds no need to award periodic alimony to either party. However, a nominal award of $1 a year is granted to both parties. The other principal assets from the marriage are the parties' pension and retirement plans. The plaintiff lists a total value of $7,017 on her financial affidavit, and the current total value of his plans are approximately $252,952.29. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, 4.) Based on the length of the marriage, and after considering all the other criteria in § 46b-81 of the Connecticut General Statutes (property division statute), § 46b-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s old, and she is fifty. They are both able to work full-time. The court finds no need to award periodic alimony to either party. However, a nominal award of $1 a year is granted to both parties. The other principal assets from the marriage are the parties' pension and retirement plans. The plaintiff lists a total value of $7,017 on her financial affidavit, and the current total value of his plans are approximately $252,952.29. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, 4.) Based on the length of the marriage, and after considering all the other criteria in § 46b-81 of the Connecticut General Statutes (property division s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c866c0c6-b0d5-44cd-ae7f-299fd44bd6d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344362-3344362","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): skills and currently holds a responsible full-time position in marketing for the APDC Construction Company in Southbury, Connecticut. On his current financial affidavit, the defendant earns a net weekly income of $638, but he should add $69 per week for his 401K, giving him a net weekly income of $707. The plaintiff's net weekly income is shown on her financial affidavit to be $730.57 per week. His weekly expenses are shown to be $1,029 per week, and hers are $1,184.70. At the present time, their net weekly income and expenses are about the same, and both have been working full-time. CT Page 15316 From their fede"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3344516 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3344516 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Acorn Fund to belong to the now adult children exclusively; that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant $5,000.00 within 60 days payable through counsel; that the defendant should receive from the plaintiffs General Dynamics SSIP the sum of $63,000.00 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order; that the plaintiff should retain as his separate property the balance of the monies in the General Dynamics SSIP in the approximate amount of $125,000.00. Also, the plaintiff should retain the Dreyfus IRA in the amount of $36,000.00, a certain Mercedes Benz automobile, cash value of USAA life insurance policy in the amount of $28,000.00. The judgment dir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mount of $125,000.00. Also, the plaintiff should retain the Dreyfus IRA in the amount of $36,000.00, a certain Mercedes Benz automobile, cash value of USAA life insurance policy in the amount of $28,000.00. The judgment directed that the plaintiffs military pension should be divided equally with the defendant. It also provided that the plaintiffs Electric Boat/General Dynamics pension and its monthly accrued benefits should be divided equally with the defendant as of the September 26, 1996 value. The defendant shall be designated as surviving spouse of the joint survivor annuity as well as the pre-retirement death ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd to belong to the now adult children exclusively; that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant $5,000.00 within 60 days payable through counsel; that the defendant should receive from the plaintiffs General Dynamics SSIP the sum of $63,000.00 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order; that the plaintiff should retain as his separate property the balance of the monies in the General Dynamics SSIP in the approximate amount of $125,000.00. Also, the plaintiff should retain the Dreyfus IRA in the amount of $36,000.00, a certain Mercedes Benz automobile, cash value of USAA life insurance policy in the amount of $28,000.00. The judgment dir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ffec716-e57d-45d2-a559-a610ead57ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3344516-3344516","title":"CourtListener opinion 3344516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ided equally with the defendant. It also provided that the plaintiffs Electric Boat/General Dynamics pension and its monthly accrued benefits should be divided equally with the defendant as of the September 26, 1996 value. The defendant shall be designated as surviving spouse of the joint survivor annuity as well as the pre-retirement death benefits for the entire benefit as of September 26, 1996. The judgment went on to provide that the plaintiff shall pay alimony to the defendant in the amount of $300.00 per week to terminate upon her death, her remarriage or in the event of a modification on further order of the court. CT Pag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c6d629f-6041-488d-ac3e-64ad59988489","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3345063 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3345063 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c6d629f-6041-488d-ac3e-64ad59988489","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c6d629f-6041-488d-ac3e-64ad59988489","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t of said COBRA insurance coverage shall be born solely by the defendant. 9. Retirement Benefits. The plaintiff shall transfer to the wife one half of the value of any retirement or annuity benefit plan accrued value to the date of this judgment by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said order shall be prepared CT Page 1750 by counsel for the defendant with the assistance of counsel for the plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this judgment. 10. Counsel Fees. Each party shall pay his or her respective counsel fees. 11. Loan from Betsaida. The defendant shall pay the $5,000.00 owed to Desmeris Matos and hold the plaintiff harmle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c6d629f-6041-488d-ac3e-64ad59988489","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f employment as provided by COBRA. The plaintiff is ordered to notify his employer and sign any documents necessary to effectuate COBRA insurance coverage for the defendant. The cost of said COBRA insurance coverage shall be born solely by the defendant. 9. Retirement Benefits. The plaintiff shall transfer to the wife one half of the value of any retirement or annuity benefit plan accrued value to the date of this judgment by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said order shall be prepared CT Page 1750 by counsel for the defendant with the assistance of counsel for the plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this judgme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c6d629f-6041-488d-ac3e-64ad59988489","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345063-3345063","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345063","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: COBRA insurance coverage shall be born solely by the defendant. 9. Retirement Benefits. The plaintiff shall transfer to the wife one half of the value of any retirement or annuity benefit plan accrued value to the date of this judgment by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said order shall be prepared CT Page 1750 by counsel for the defendant with the assistance of counsel for the plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this judgment. 10. Counsel Fees. Each party shall pay his or her respective counsel fees. 11. Loan from Betsaida. The defendant shall pay the $5,000.00 owed to Desmeris Matos and hold the plaintiff harmle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3345626 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3345626 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: affidavits, and shall hold the other harmless from any liabilities set forth therein or any liabilities in connection with the jointly owned assets ordered assigned to the other party. 9. The court shall retain jurisdiction to enter such orders, including \\Qualified Domestic Relations Orders\\\" as may be necessary in order to effectuate the provisions of the judgment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: anning advice from a financial advisor without regard to the individual contribution of the parties to the particular asset acquired. In addition to these assets, the parties have acquired by reason of their respective employment positions and income, certain pension CT Page 14015 benefits, IRA and 401K plans, an annuity and CD, checking accounts, stocks and automobiles, all held individually and to which neither party has made any direct claim. At the hearing of November 21, 1997, the plaintiff alleged and the defendant admitted that on one occasion he had placed his hands around the plaintiff's neck and threatened t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ithout regard to the individual contribution of the parties to the particular asset acquired. In addition to these assets, the parties have acquired by reason of their respective employment positions and income, certain pension CT Page 14015 benefits, IRA and 401K plans, an annuity and CD, checking accounts, stocks and automobiles, all held individually and to which neither party has made any direct claim. At the hearing of November 21, 1997, the plaintiff alleged and the defendant admitted that on one occasion he had placed his hands around the plaintiff's neck and threatened to burn their house with the plaintiff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c35837f-4a05-4f34-a192-382465c63459","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345626-3345626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s, and shall hold the other harmless from any liabilities set forth therein or any liabilities in connection with the jointly owned assets ordered assigned to the other party. 9. The court shall retain jurisdiction to enter such orders, including \\Qualified Domestic Relations Orders\\\" as may be necessary in order to effectuate the provisions of the judgment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3345867 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3345867 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ll hear the parties on the issue of an immediate wage withholding if the defendant objects to it, § 52-362 (b). 3. The plaintiff is awarded 50% the defendant's IBM Retirement Plan. The attorneys for both parties are directed to cooperate in preparing a QDRO as outlined in plaintiff's Exhibit 7. The court retains jurisdiction to execute the final formal CT Page 7950 order. 4. The plaintiff is awarded 50% of the defendant's TDSP 401(k) account. A QDRO shall be prepared if required as outlined in paragraph 3 supra. 5. The plaintiff is awarded 363 shares of the defendant's IBM stock. The defendant shall retain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ling $16,500; his TDSP 401k account, containing $149,681 as of December 31, 2000; 725 shares of IBM stock (closing at $117.25 on 6/7/01) worth $85,006; a checking account containing $1,200 and a vested defined benefit pension containing two components, a core retirement benefit paid only on a monthly basis as a life annuity and a personal retirement provision (PRP) which may be received in a single lump sum or in a lifetime monthly payments upon retirement, (plaintiff's Exhibit 7). IBM provided the following estimates as of April 1, 2001. The defendant is retirement eligible and is entitled to receive $2669.68 monthly now upon imm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt consist of stocks and mutual funds totaling $16,500; his TDSP 401k account, containing $149,681 as of December 31, 2000; 725 shares of IBM stock (closing at $117.25 on 6/7/01) worth $85,006; a checking account containing $1,200 and a vested defined benefit pension containing two components, a core retirement benefit paid only on a monthly basis as a life annuity and a personal retirement provision (PRP) which may be received in a single lump sum or in a lifetime monthly payments upon retirement, (plaintiff's Exhibit 7). IBM provided the following estimates as of April 1, 2001. The defendant is retirement eligible and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab43144-580d-4184-acb6-42f42e351de9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3345867-3345867","title":"CourtListener opinion 3345867","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ed to each party, with court approval. The remaining balance still being held, listed on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, is $48,268. The defendant has a pending purchase of a condominium unit. The defendant has purchased a coop and has paid off the TDSP (401k) loan of approximately $17,000 with part of the marital home proceeds given to him. He had sold 600 shares of IBM stock, after this action was commenced, with his wife's knowledge and approval, and applied the proceeds to reduction of the credit union loan. He purchased an auto, after this suit commenced, which he values on his financial affidavit as worth $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a9a8de6-5e8e-42f5-8f08-b8ec894cf04e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225","title":"CourtListener opinion 3347225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3347225 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3347225 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a9a8de6-5e8e-42f5-8f08-b8ec894cf04e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225","title":"CourtListener opinion 3347225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a9a8de6-5e8e-42f5-8f08-b8ec894cf04e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225","title":"CourtListener opinion 3347225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he defendant's retirement including his pension. Since the plaintiff will remain the legal wife of the defendant, the court assumes her spousal interest, whatever it may be, is unaffected. In any event, the court cannot entertain the plaintiff's request for a QDRO absent any evidence, cf, Lake v. Lake . 49 App. 89. The plaintiff also requests a life insurance policy be obtained by the defendant. The Lake case holding prevents the court from entertaining such request. The defendant does list a $6,000 term life insurance policy. The court elects to enter no order regarding it. The court with his employment earnings in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a9a8de6-5e8e-42f5-8f08-b8ec894cf04e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3347225-3347225","title":"CourtListener opinion 3347225","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t at Chase Manhattan, 400 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb valued by the defendant at $38,5331.31. U.S. Savings Bonds valued at $3,500, the building lot 50% interest, a 1986 Plymouth for $500 and household furniture valued at $3,000. No value os assigned to his pension. No evidence was introduced by either party concerning the particulars of the defendant's retirement including his pension. Since the plaintiff will remain the legal wife of the defendant, the court assumes her spousal interest, whatever it may be, is unaffected. In any event, the court cannot entertain the plaintiff's request for a QDRO absent any eviden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3348061 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3348061 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s awarded the 1994 Nissan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. 2. All of the various pension and retirement accounts and plans of both parties are ordered equally divided. The parties are ordered to equally share the costs of the preparation of all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Domestic Relations Orders necessary to accomplish the same . . . The plans to be divided are as follows: (a) The defendant has a Connecticut Teacher's Retirement Plan Defined Benefit Annuity Form. Lump distribution is not available. This is ordered equally divided. (b) The defendant has a TSA $ 48,925.00 The defendant has a Zenith Fund $ 48,107"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ERS 1. The 1991 Mazda and 1997 Nissan Altima motor vehicles shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit are awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is awarded the 1994 Nissan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. 2. All of the various pension and retirement accounts and plans of both parties are ordered equally divided. The parties are ordered to equally share the costs of the preparation of all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Domestic Relations Orders necessary to accomplish the same . . . The plans to be divided are as follows: (a) The defendant has a Connecticut Teacher's Retirement Plan Defined Benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: PROPERTY ORDERS 1. The 1991 Mazda and 1997 Nissan Altima motor vehicles shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit are awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is awarded the 1994 Nissan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. 2. All of the various pension and retirement accounts and plans of both parties are ordered equally divided. The parties are ordered to equally share the costs of the preparation of all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Domestic Relations Orders necessary to accomplish the same . . . The plans to be divided are as follows: (a) The defendant has a Connecticut Teacher's Retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"787e04e8-7759-4e1f-ab62-3e71b2a737f7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348061-3348061","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348061","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the 1994 Nissan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. 2. All of the various pension and retirement accounts and plans of both parties are ordered equally divided. The parties are ordered to equally share the costs of the preparation of all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Domestic Relations Orders necessary to accomplish the same . . . The plans to be divided are as follows: (a) The defendant has a Connecticut Teacher's Retirement Plan Defined Benefit Annuity Form. Lump distribution is not available. This is ordered equally divided. (b) The defendant has a TSA $ 48,925.00 The defendant has a Zenith Fund $ 48,107"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13483721-1857-42fc-9257-a868f891ff73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3348655 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3348655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13483721-1857-42fc-9257-a868f891ff73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13483721-1857-42fc-9257-a868f891ff73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n the parties. Each party shall pay his or her share of capital gains tax, if any, incurred as a result of the sale. 5. Other Assets The brokerage accounts and deferred assets of the parties shall be equally divided between them. The cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be shared equally. The assets shall be valued as of May 3 1, 2000 together with all interest accruing thereon until the date of distribution. Each party shall retain any other bank accounts in his or her sole name. Each party shall retain, whether in a sole account or otherwise, the $30,000 each of them withdrew pursuant to the parties' stipulation da"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13483721-1857-42fc-9257-a868f891ff73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3348655-3348655","title":"CourtListener opinion 3348655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ies. Each party shall pay his or her share of capital gains tax, if any, incurred as a result of the sale. 5. Other Assets The brokerage accounts and deferred assets of the parties shall be equally divided between them. The cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be shared equally. The assets shall be valued as of May 3 1, 2000 together with all interest accruing thereon until the date of distribution. Each party shall retain any other bank accounts in his or her sole name. Each party shall retain, whether in a sole account or otherwise, the $30,000 each of them withdrew pursuant to the parties' stipulation da"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbe4b136-9bd8-4c22-9eb3-7783d3a8079b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3349292 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3349292 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbe4b136-9bd8-4c22-9eb3-7783d3a8079b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbe4b136-9bd8-4c22-9eb3-7783d3a8079b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , and the defendant's IRA shall be totaled as of the day of entry of judgment and each account shall be divided equally, if the parties cannot agree on a reallocation which will bring about the same result. The court retains jurisdiction to sign any necessary QDRO's. Counsel for the defendant is directed to draft same. 8. The plaintiff shall retain as her sole property the present contents of the marital home. The defendant shall retain the items removed from the home that are now in his possession as his sole property. 9. The parties shall otherwise retain their remaining assets as their sole property respective"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbe4b136-9bd8-4c22-9eb3-7783d3a8079b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f resumed full time employment as an instructor for the State of Connecticut Practical Nurse Education Program, starting with $32,500.00 base pay. She has a provisional certification for three years, and is currently in the second year. She will have a vested pension after ten years of continuous employment. She is currently in step five of group 1 for full time teachers, earning $35,757.00 annually or $685.00 weekly gross and $438.00 net, (cf. Plaintiff's Exhibits #3 and #4). The defendant received a B.S. degree in electrical engineering and an M.S. degree in accounting. He holds a N.Y. State C.P.A. license. His init"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbe4b136-9bd8-4c22-9eb3-7783d3a8079b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349292-3349292","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349292","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n joined Amex to eliminate the rigors of travel. He currently is employed by Staveley, Inc., in Norwalk as manager of financial services earning $87,740.00 CT Page 5592 annually gross and $5,000.00 monthly net of taxes but prior to $516.54 deducted to repay a 401(k) loan. He is also furnished a leased auto which his employer values at $7,314.00 annually and which is considered to be additional income to the defendant. The defendant's net weekly income is $1,163.00 plus the auto provided which is an additional $140.00 weekly. The defendant's net weekly disposable income is also augmented by a bonus averaging $80.00 we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3349665 Extracted reporter citation: 459 A.2d 523. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3349665 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: whatever documents are necessary for the title to the vehicle to be in the plaintiff's name only. 11. All bank accounts shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit are awarded to the plaintiff. 12. The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant by QDRO 50 percent of her interest in her City of Danbury pension plan. 13. The IRA shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit in the amount of $1,913.75 is awarded to the plaintiff. 14. The IRA shown on the defendant's financial affidavit with a balance of $55,724.58 is ordered divided equally between the parties by QDRO. 15. The MasterCard liability is or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: paid as of October 10, 1996. The plaintiff would be entitled to social security benefits at a reduced amount at age sixty-two of $395 per month. The social security benefit at her full retirement age of sixty-five and four months would be $545 per month. Her retirement benefit at age seventy would be $765 per month. She would also be entitled to monthly disability benefits of about $480 per month. She is also entitled to survivor benefits when the defendant reaches full retirement age of $495 per month. She has a pension/retirement plan through the City of Danbury. That plan would pay her a monthly benefit at age sixty-five of $1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: retirement benefit at age seventy would be $765 per month. She would also be entitled to monthly disability benefits of about $480 per month. She is also entitled to survivor benefits when the defendant reaches full retirement age of $495 per month. She has a pension/retirement plan through the City of Danbury. That plan would pay her a monthly benefit at age sixty-five of $1075. It is a defined pension plan. The defendant was born on August 30, 1933. The defendant has a hearing problem and also suffers from Lupus. The defendant was employed by American National Can Corporation between 1966 and 1995, except for one ye"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af2b1545-6d63-402d-80d1-7815e0610e24","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3349665-3349665","title":"CourtListener opinion 3349665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 A.2d 523","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): CT Page 9295 1, 1995. He has deductions from his disability income for federal taxes of $89 per week, life insurance of $5 per week, and dependency insurance of $1 per week. His financial affidavit of October 9, 1996, shows a deduction of $121 per week for a 401K loan. No such deduction is being made from his disability income. The defendant has the right to withdraw funds from his 401K as a matter of right as of November 30, 1997. He purchased his 1994 Chevrolet pickup truck on November 5, 1994. He did not tell the plaintiff that he was purchasing that vehicle. The total sale price was $24,995. He received a trad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"680b3f88-e3b1-4783-a00b-b65731be98a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508","title":"CourtListener opinion 3350508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3350508 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3350508 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"680b3f88-e3b1-4783-a00b-b65731be98a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508","title":"CourtListener opinion 3350508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"680b3f88-e3b1-4783-a00b-b65731be98a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3350508-3350508","title":"CourtListener opinion 3350508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an administrative appeal under UAPA C.G.S. 4-166 , et seq. CT Page 3048 Plaintiff is the son of an incompetent person appealing the decision of a Fair Hearing Officer designated by the Commissioner of Income Maintenance under C.G.S. 17-2a. The question at issue is whether the sum of $800.00 per month which is paid as alimony under a Superior Court decree can lawfully be deducted from his father's income for Title XIX purposes. Plaintiff's parents were married in 1947. In 1983 his father was diagnosed as having Alzheimer's disease which he still has and for which, with other infirm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3352168 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3352168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary to effectuate said order in conformance with the requirements of the Plan Administrator. Each party is required to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the provisions of this order. The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of this order."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ement and/or pay any and/or all of the debts listed on his financial affidavit dated May 4, 2000. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify her for any liability on the 1998 Federal Tax liability of approximately $9,600.00. 8. PENSION OR RETIREMENT PLAN The defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sition agreement and/or pay any and/or all of the debts listed on his financial affidavit dated May 4, 2000. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify her for any liability on the 1998 Federal Tax liability of approximately $9,600.00. 8. PENSION OR RETIREMENT PLAN The defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8dfd4c6-e6eb-4902-97e2-b751671e02b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352168-3352168","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary to effectuate said order in conformance with the requirements of the Plan Administrator. Each party is required to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the provisions of this order. The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of this order."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f1d5622-54b5-42a2-b18d-40ea63e688a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3352364 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3352364 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f1d5622-54b5-42a2-b18d-40ea63e688a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f1d5622-54b5-42a2-b18d-40ea63e688a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall be shared equally by the parties. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over the accounts until they are distributed CT Page 8216 between the parties and to resolves any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. Once the above accounts have been equally divided, the Husband shall immediately pay to the Wife her attorney's fees of $28,675.00. During the pendency of this action the Husband has used joint accounts to pay his attorney's fees and other costs and expenses. The parties entered into a written Stipulation dated June 27, 2002 regarding monies to be held"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f1d5622-54b5-42a2-b18d-40ea63e688a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352364-3352364","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ncial affidavits: First National Bank of Naples Checking Account — $1,000.00 Fleet Bank — Checking $8,000.00 5 th 3 rd Bank of Columbus — Checking $2,500.00 112 Shares of IBM Stock market value IBM Tax Deferred Savings Plan $141,044.00 VLO 401K $15,448.00 Union Savings #10,71700234 $5,363.00 USAA Growth Fund $1,300.00 Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union $1,626.00 Fleet Checking/Savings $190.00 Savings Bank of Danbury — Checking $2,000.00 GM Stock — 21 shares market value Delphi Stock — 13 shares market value Union Savings $5,700.00 Hudson Valley Credit $380.00 Fleet IRA $26,700.00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2f6cd81-33d7-4b72-a677-b9c857ab5c13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3352626 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3352626 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2f6cd81-33d7-4b72-a677-b9c857ab5c13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2f6cd81-33d7-4b72-a677-b9c857ab5c13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: igation. Proof of said insurance shall be supplied on an annual basis. The defendant shall be entitled to claim both children as deductions for purposes of income tax. The husband's pension through Liberty Mutual shall be divided equally by the parties. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared and issued to accomplish that end. The bond in the amount of $1,200.00 held by the Minnechaug Swim Club shall be divided equally upon the redemption of that bond. Redemption of that bond shall take place at a time when the minor children are no longer actively using that facility. CT Page 13981 The court is retaining jurisdiction for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2f6cd81-33d7-4b72-a677-b9c857ab5c13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d shall be provided for such time as the defendant has a child support obligation. Proof of said insurance shall be supplied on an annual basis. The defendant shall be entitled to claim both children as deductions for purposes of income tax. The husband's pension through Liberty Mutual shall be divided equally by the parties. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared and issued to accomplish that end. The bond in the amount of $1,200.00 held by the Minnechaug Swim Club shall be divided equally upon the redemption of that bond. Redemption of that bond shall take place at a time when the minor children"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2f6cd81-33d7-4b72-a677-b9c857ab5c13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352626-3352626","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: roof of said insurance shall be supplied on an annual basis. The defendant shall be entitled to claim both children as deductions for purposes of income tax. The husband's pension through Liberty Mutual shall be divided equally by the parties. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared and issued to accomplish that end. The bond in the amount of $1,200.00 held by the Minnechaug Swim Club shall be divided equally upon the redemption of that bond. Redemption of that bond shall take place at a time when the minor children are no longer actively using that facility. CT Page 13981 The court is retaining jurisdiction for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bcba38d-a464-404c-a585-8be0e016bdd2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3352694 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3352694 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bcba38d-a464-404c-a585-8be0e016bdd2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bcba38d-a464-404c-a585-8be0e016bdd2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of that amount, $5000 was incurred towards paying his attorney's fees, and $3500 was used towards paying the defendant's attorney's fees. The City of Danbury recognizes Domestic Relations Orders for retirees from the Fire Department. Under the terms of the pension plan for the plaintiff, he receives two-thirds of all salary increases when the prior position that he held with the City of Danbury Fire Department has a CT Page 5506 salary increase. In the event of any order assigning part of the plaintiffs pension plan to the defendant, there will be no benefits to her upon the plaintiffs death. The pension plan also pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bcba38d-a464-404c-a585-8be0e016bdd2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1414 that was incurred by himself. He has People's MasterCard with a balance of $11,063. of that amount, $5000 was incurred towards paying his attorney's fees, and $3500 was used towards paying the defendant's attorney's fees. The City of Danbury recognizes Domestic Relations Orders for retirees from the Fire Department. Under the terms of the pension plan for the plaintiff, he receives two-thirds of all salary increases when the prior position that he held with the City of Danbury Fire Department has a CT Page 5506 salary increase. In the event of any order assigning part of the plaintiffs pension plan to the defendant, there will be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bcba38d-a464-404c-a585-8be0e016bdd2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3352694-3352694","title":"CourtListener opinion 3352694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ord F250 that the plaintiff still owns. The fair market value of that vehicle is $15,775. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: ORDERS CT Page 5508 A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved, and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. The plaintiff is to pay to the defendant alimo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3355114 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3355114 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dividual. At the time of the dissolution the plaintiff was a Major in the Army National Guard Reserve Program. The trial court dissolution order included provisions for property division. Paragraph 14 of that judgment provided: The husband shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order when his United States Army pension vests giving the wife an interest equal to twenty percent of what he would have been entitled to receive if he were vested as of the date of this decree. Pursuant to the trial court's judgment, the plaintiff's counsel prepared a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In that September 12, 1994, document both parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Major in the Army National Guard Reserve Program. The trial court dissolution order included provisions for property division. Paragraph 14 of that judgment provided: The husband shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order when his United States Army pension vests giving the wife an interest equal to twenty percent of what he would have been entitled to receive if he were vested as of the date of this decree. Pursuant to the trial court's judgment, the plaintiff's counsel prepared a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In that September 12, 1994, document both parties stipulated in relevant part: CT Pag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: At the time of the dissolution the plaintiff was a Major in the Army National Guard Reserve Program. The trial court dissolution order included provisions for property division. Paragraph 14 of that judgment provided: The husband shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order when his United States Army pension vests giving the wife an interest equal to twenty percent of what he would have been entitled to receive if he were vested as of the date of this decree. Pursuant to the trial court's judgment, the plaintiff's counsel prepared a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In that September 12, 1994, document both parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34bfaa05-c14e-44ea-9ddb-50b99fce98ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355114-3355114","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: order dissolving the marriage of these litigants. Individual counsel represented each individual. At the time of the dissolution the plaintiff was a Major in the Army National Guard Reserve Program. The trial court dissolution order included provisions for property division. Paragraph 14 of that judgment provided: The husband shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order when his United States Army pension vests giving the wife an interest equal to twenty percent of what he would have been entitled to receive if he were vested as of the date of this decree. Pursuant to the trial court's judgment, the plaintiff's couns"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f10f87-8c9e-4172-8415-616db3899f47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3355813 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3355813 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f10f87-8c9e-4172-8415-616db3899f47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f10f87-8c9e-4172-8415-616db3899f47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ssolution. The parties also stipulated that they would not testify as to the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage. There are three issues which are not resolved. They are alimony, life insurance, and whether any alimony order should be the subject of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Alimony The plaintiff requests periodic alimony at the rate of $135 per week to be paid through a QUADRO from the defendant's Connecticut State Teacher's Retirement System. The defendant proposes an order of $50 to $60 to be paid directly by him without a QUADRO. The wife is fifty-six years old. She has an M.A. in education. She taught school from 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f10f87-8c9e-4172-8415-616db3899f47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: reasonable although some modest savings might be effected. There is unquestionably a substantial shortfall, which has been met by financial aid from her family and friends. Her retirement income will likely consist of social security in addition to her own retirement plan, which has a modest present value. CT Page 5523 The defendant has an M.S. in Education and a Sixth year certificate. He taught school in the 1960's and was an associate professor at Eastern Connecticut State University. In 1968 he became principal of a school in Hebron. He held that position for twenty-one years, taking an early retirement in 1989. Since"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f10f87-8c9e-4172-8415-616db3899f47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355813-3355813","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The parties also stipulated that they would not testify as to the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage. There are three issues which are not resolved. They are alimony, life insurance, and whether any alimony order should be the subject of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Alimony The plaintiff requests periodic alimony at the rate of $135 per week to be paid through a QUADRO from the defendant's Connecticut State Teacher's Retirement System. The defendant proposes an order of $50 to $60 to be paid directly by him without a QUADRO. The wife is fifty-six years old. She has an M.A. in education. She taught school from 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be398ae1-9cb1-4d78-a46a-7c3f20508aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3355870 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3355870 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be398ae1-9cb1-4d78-a46a-7c3f20508aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be398ae1-9cb1-4d78-a46a-7c3f20508aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rest in and to the household furnishings and personal effects located at the marital residence and to her 1993 Honda Accord automobile. 3. IRA's The plaintiff husband shall transfer one half of his present value in his IRA to the wife by assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Both parties are required to execute any documents necessary to carry out the requirements of this subparagraph. The court will keep jurisdiction over this paragraph in order to ensure that its provision is carried out and/or any modification is required by the planned administrator to effectuate the transfer. 4. Life Insurance The plaintiff husband is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"be398ae1-9cb1-4d78-a46a-7c3f20508aa5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3355870-3355870","title":"CourtListener opinion 3355870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d to the household furnishings and personal effects located at the marital residence and to her 1993 Honda Accord automobile. 3. IRA's The plaintiff husband shall transfer one half of his present value in his IRA to the wife by assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Both parties are required to execute any documents necessary to carry out the requirements of this subparagraph. The court will keep jurisdiction over this paragraph in order to ensure that its provision is carried out and/or any modification is required by the planned administrator to effectuate the transfer. 4. Life Insurance The plaintiff husband is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e50c8a4-3e72-4d6e-bdb7-157e6c2a675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304","title":"CourtListener opinion 3356304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3356304 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3356304 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e50c8a4-3e72-4d6e-bdb7-157e6c2a675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304","title":"CourtListener opinion 3356304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e50c8a4-3e72-4d6e-bdb7-157e6c2a675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304","title":"CourtListener opinion 3356304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rest in and to the household furnishings and personal effects located at the marital residence and to her 1993 Honda Accord automobile. 3. IRA's The plaintiff husband shall transfer one half of his present value in his IRA to the wife by assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Both parties are required to execute any documents necessary to carry out the requirements of this subparagraph. The court will keep jurisdiction over this paragraph in order to ensure that its provision is carried out and/or any modification is required by the planned administrator to effectuate the transfer. 4. Life Insurance The plaintiff husband is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e50c8a4-3e72-4d6e-bdb7-157e6c2a675c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3356304-3356304","title":"CourtListener opinion 3356304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d to the household furnishings and personal effects located at the marital residence and to her 1993 Honda Accord automobile. 3. IRA's The plaintiff husband shall transfer one half of his present value in his IRA to the wife by assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Both parties are required to execute any documents necessary to carry out the requirements of this subparagraph. The court will keep jurisdiction over this paragraph in order to ensure that its provision is carried out and/or any modification is required by the planned administrator to effectuate the transfer. 4. Life Insurance The plaintiff husband is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e31393d4-482d-486a-85b3-7e5bd3c62385","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3357420 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3357420 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e31393d4-482d-486a-85b3-7e5bd3c62385","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e31393d4-482d-486a-85b3-7e5bd3c62385","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Plaintiff Defendant Premarital IRA $ 7,000 401K $ 80,000 Mutual Fund 15,000 House 20,000 $22,000 100,000 MARITAL ESTATE Plaintiff= $29,029 Defendant = $186,844 Each party shall retain his or her assets. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) within thirty (30) days of the dissolution of marriage the sum of Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eight ($78,908) Dollars, which represents a 50/50% division of the marital assets. 7. DEBTS: Each party shall pay and hold the other harmless from all debts listed on their respective financial affidavits unless otherwise indicated herein. 8. PER"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e31393d4-482d-486a-85b3-7e5bd3c62385","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ncial help is in dispute. As to the defendant's pre-marital assets he owns real estate in Hingham, Massachusetts which he owned for a period of CT Page 7136 20 years and the plaintiff waived any claim to said asset. Further, the plaintiff claims a pre-marital 401K plan of $140,000 but this amount is in dispute. The defendant used a substantially smaller amount in financial affidavits he filed with the court in connection with the dissolution of his first marriage. The court finds that the amount of the defendant's 401K plan pre-marital is $80,000. The parties first met in April of 1994 at a mutual friend's wedding."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e31393d4-482d-486a-85b3-7e5bd3c62385","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357420-3357420","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Defendant Premarital IRA $ 7,000 401K $ 80,000 Mutual Fund 15,000 House 20,000 $22,000 100,000 MARITAL ESTATE Plaintiff= $29,029 Defendant = $186,844 Each party shall retain his or her assets. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) within thirty (30) days of the dissolution of marriage the sum of Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eight ($78,908) Dollars, which represents a 50/50% division of the marital assets. 7. DEBTS: Each party shall pay and hold the other harmless from all debts listed on their respective financial affidavits unless otherwise indicated herein. 8. PER"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef4387be-ddb0-49bd-84b6-4ea21adf334a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357681","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3357681 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3357681 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef4387be-ddb0-49bd-84b6-4ea21adf334a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357681","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef4387be-ddb0-49bd-84b6-4ea21adf334a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357681","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted September 22, 1997, CT Page 15451 the parties came before the Court, Koletsky, J., and were heard and judgment entered on said date, in accordance with the terms of the marital agreement. On September 22, 1997, pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was executed by the Court, Koletsky, J. Thereafter, on April 6, 1998, pursuant to a motion to open judgment, the Court Martin, J., modified the order of support upward, determined an arrearage and entered certain other orders. Thereafter, three motions for contempt were filed. Plaintiff's first motion, dated May 22, 1998, claimed that pursuant to an o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef4387be-ddb0-49bd-84b6-4ea21adf334a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3357681-3357681","title":"CourtListener opinion 3357681","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ber 22, 1997, CT Page 15451 the parties came before the Court, Koletsky, J., and were heard and judgment entered on said date, in accordance with the terms of the marital agreement. On September 22, 1997, pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was executed by the Court, Koletsky, J. Thereafter, on April 6, 1998, pursuant to a motion to open judgment, the Court Martin, J., modified the order of support upward, determined an arrearage and entered certain other orders. Thereafter, three motions for contempt were filed. Plaintiff's first motion, dated May 22, 1998, claimed that pursuant to an o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3358224 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3358224 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: al expenses by the Insurance Company. PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the Defendant's Pension/Retirement plan and/or 401(k) Plan, as of the date of this dissolution. 2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of approving a QDRO to secure this order. DEBTS 1. Each party shall be responsible for the debts as shown in their respective financial affidavits. 2. In the event the defendant files Bankruptcy, this shall not be considered to be a change in circumstances. 3. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any liability in connection with the repairs to the Ponti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: expenses shall be CT Page 4494 equally divided between the parties. 2. Section 46b-84 (c) is ordered to facilitate the payment of the medical expenses by the Insurance Company. PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the Defendant's Pension/Retirement plan and/or 401(k) Plan, as of the date of this dissolution. 2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of approving a QDRO to secure this order. DEBTS 1. Each party shall be responsible for the debts as shown in their respective financial affidavits. 2. In the event the defendant files Bankruptcy, this shall not be considered to be a change in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: is employment. Any unreimbursed Medical, dental, hospital and/or prescriptions expenses shall be CT Page 4494 equally divided between the parties. 2. Section 46b-84 (c) is ordered to facilitate the payment of the medical expenses by the Insurance Company. PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the Defendant's Pension/Retirement plan and/or 401(k) Plan, as of the date of this dissolution. 2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of approving a QDRO to secure this order. DEBTS 1. Each party shall be responsible for the debts as shown in their respective financial affidavits. 2. In th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c1b64ca7-163d-4e77-ac18-57e325f51709","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358224-3358224","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ge 4494 equally divided between the parties. 2. Section 46b-84 (c) is ordered to facilitate the payment of the medical expenses by the Insurance Company. PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the Defendant's Pension/Retirement plan and/or 401(k) Plan, as of the date of this dissolution. 2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of approving a QDRO to secure this order. DEBTS 1. Each party shall be responsible for the debts as shown in their respective financial affidavits. 2. In the event the defendant files Bankruptcy, this shall not be considered to be a change in circumstances."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3358365 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3358365 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the rumpus room. 9. The defendant is to retain the plaintiff on his pension so that she is entitled to receive a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) and a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annunity (QJSA). The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) required by the plan administrator to comply with this order. The defendant shall also continue the plaintiff as primary beneficiary on his group life insurance policy until the plaintiff attains her 65th birthday. 10. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, as periodic alimony, the sum of $1 per year until the death of either party or the plaint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: go he was disabled in an auto accident and is presently receiving $286 weekly from long term disability coverage furnished by his employer. He is pursuing a negligence claim against the other operator. As of April 1, 1994, he will be eligible to retire with a pension of $674.78 monthly for his lifetime with a 50% widow's pension benefit payable after his death. There is also a permanent $10,000 life insurance minimum coverage for his lifetime. Each party has hospital, Medical and dental insurance coverage which also provides secondary coverage to the spouse. Based on all of the evidence before it, the court conclude"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s room. 9. The defendant is to retain the plaintiff on his pension so that she is entitled to receive a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) and a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annunity (QJSA). The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) required by the plan administrator to comply with this order. The defendant shall also continue the plaintiff as primary beneficiary on his group life insurance policy until the plaintiff attains her 65th birthday. 10. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, as periodic alimony, the sum of $1 per year until the death of either party or the plaint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d28a975c-c94b-432c-b332-c0ad663d1012","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358365-3358365","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: f) The defendant's fishing equipment; g) The defendant's car club trophies; CT Page 10537 h) The TV set located in the rumpus room. 9. The defendant is to retain the plaintiff on his pension so that she is entitled to receive a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) and a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annunity (QJSA). The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) required by the plan administrator to comply with this order. The defendant shall also continue the plaintiff as primary beneficiary on his group life insurance policy until the plaintiff attains her 65th birthday."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3358811 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3358811 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aration Agreement which was incorporated by reference into the decree and its provisions became the orders of the court. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of that agreement state as follows: CT Page 1849 27. The husband shall immediately transfer to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or nontaxable rollover a one-half interest in the following: GE Savings and Security 401(k) Plan in the approximate amount of $945,000, U.S. Savings Bonds 401(k) in the approximate amount of $1,300. The husband shall be exclusively entitled to his GE Executive Deferred Savings in the approximate amount of $18,000, and GE Voluntary Pension Plan in the approx"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nd Security 401(k) Plan in the approximate amount of $945,000, U.S. Savings Bonds 401(k) in the approximate amount of $1,300. The husband shall be exclusively entitled to his GE Executive Deferred Savings in the approximate amount of $18,000, and GE Voluntary Pension Plan in the approximate amount of $7,000. The husband shall transfer to the wife a one-half interest in his GE Pension Plan (Contributory) in the approximate amount of $65,000, Janus Twenty IRA in the approximate amount of $55,000 and American Century Growth IRA in the approximate amount of $29,000. Said assets with their approximate current values are set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Paragraphs 27 and 28 of that agreement state as follows: CT Page 1849 27. The husband shall immediately transfer to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or nontaxable rollover a one-half interest in the following: GE Savings and Security 401(k) Plan in the approximate amount of $945,000, U.S. Savings Bonds 401(k) in the approximate amount of $1,300. The husband shall be exclusively entitled to his GE Executive Deferred Savings in the approximate amount of $18,000, and GE Voluntary Pension Plan in the approximate amount of $7,000. The husband shall transfer to the wife a one-half interest in his GE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8eb774df-2a23-4d1a-9e06-8a70c66824a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3358811-3358811","title":"CourtListener opinion 3358811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: reement which was incorporated by reference into the decree and its provisions became the orders of the court. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of that agreement state as follows: CT Page 1849 27. The husband shall immediately transfer to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or nontaxable rollover a one-half interest in the following: GE Savings and Security 401(k) Plan in the approximate amount of $945,000, U.S. Savings Bonds 401(k) in the approximate amount of $1,300. The husband shall be exclusively entitled to his GE Executive Deferred Savings in the approximate amount of $18,000, and GE Voluntary Pension Plan in the approx"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2239a057-c76a-479b-a641-4df8503562ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534","title":"CourtListener opinion 3360534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for trial of the custody issues. By stipulation dat","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3360534 Docket: for trial of the custody issues. By stipulation dat. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3360534 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2239a057-c76a-479b-a641-4df8503562ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534","title":"CourtListener opinion 3360534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for trial of the custody issues. By stipulation dat","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2239a057-c76a-479b-a641-4df8503562ed","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3360534-3360534","title":"CourtListener opinion 3360534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for trial of the custody issues. By stipulation dat","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ) This summary is based on testimony of the Xerox Manager, Human Resources, Corporate Staff, Patricia Pia. In 1996 the defendant was paid a bonus of $26,745. The defendant has $288,556 in his profit sharing account. The defendant has a defined benefit pension plan having a present value as of November 30, 1996 of $275,889. The defendant actually has two accounts, one known as a transitional account and a second one known as a cash balance account. When the defendant retires his pension will be based on only one of these accounts, the greater in value at that time. Currently, the defendant's cash account contains"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9861e496-d3f7-45c9-93aa-5a466d552699","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3361101 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3361101 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9861e496-d3f7-45c9-93aa-5a466d552699","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9861e496-d3f7-45c9-93aa-5a466d552699","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Insurance and Knights Cabinet checks ($681); $10,000 from defendant's credit union account; the 1990 Oldsmobile Regency ($9,000); personal property in residence ($10,000); and stamp collection ($600). The defendant is further ordered to transfer by QUADRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) $70,000 of his Paine Webber IRA. The plaintiff is thus assigned assets of a total value of approximately $380,000. Defendant is left with approximately $370,000 in his IRA, his car ($11,000); $3,500 in his credit union and some modest personal effects. Plaintiff has incurred extensive legal fees and medical expenses. The plaintiff's expenses are due in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9861e496-d3f7-45c9-93aa-5a466d552699","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arties testified as to their marital history, assets, health and claims. The court finds that the defendant enjoys good health but was encouraged to retire and is unlikely to find employment as an engineer or business executive. His income includes a weekly pension benefit of $1,104, weekly social security of $224.77 and interest/dividend income of $60 a week. The defendant also will receive additional income from substantial retirement savings accounts. The plaintiff has numerous health problems, however, such problems do not disable her from employment. The plaintiff can and should work and the court is attributin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9861e496-d3f7-45c9-93aa-5a466d552699","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361101-3361101","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and Knights Cabinet checks ($681); $10,000 from defendant's credit union account; the 1990 Oldsmobile Regency ($9,000); personal property in residence ($10,000); and stamp collection ($600). The defendant is further ordered to transfer by QUADRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) $70,000 of his Paine Webber IRA. The plaintiff is thus assigned assets of a total value of approximately $380,000. Defendant is left with approximately $370,000 in his IRA, his car ($11,000); $3,500 in his credit union and some modest personal effects. Plaintiff has incurred extensive legal fees and medical expenses. The plaintiff's expenses are due in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3361108 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3361108 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: all transfer one-half of his 401K savings CT Page 563-W plan to the plaintiff by way of a rollover to an IRA of the plaintiff's choice. One-half of the defendant's interest in his United Technologies pension plan shall be conveyed to the plaintiff by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This is to be effectuated within 30 days of the decree of dissolution. The court denies defendant's request regarding the wife's pension plan. The defendant husband may claim the minor child, Ashley, as an exemption on his income tax returns. The plaintiff wife may claim the minor child, Michael, as an exemption on her income tax returns. The defendant m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: with the mutual consent of the parties. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K savings CT Page 563-W plan to the plaintiff by way of a rollover to an IRA of the plaintiff's choice. One-half of the defendant's interest in his United Technologies pension plan shall be conveyed to the plaintiff by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This is to be effectuated within 30 days of the decree of dissolution. The court denies defendant's request regarding the wife's pension plan. The defendant husband may claim the minor child, Ashley, as an exemption on his income tax returns. The plaintiff wife may claim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ntal expenses not covered by insurance is to be shared equally by the parties. Unless of an emergency nature, any extraordinary medical or dental expenses shall be incurred with the mutual consent of the parties. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K savings CT Page 563-W plan to the plaintiff by way of a rollover to an IRA of the plaintiff's choice. One-half of the defendant's interest in his United Technologies pension plan shall be conveyed to the plaintiff by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This is to be effectuated within 30 days of the decree of dissolution. The court denies defendant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47728c9c-c201-49a4-86c3-f7ed4b79963c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3361108-3361108","title":"CourtListener opinion 3361108","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: er one-half of his 401K savings CT Page 563-W plan to the plaintiff by way of a rollover to an IRA of the plaintiff's choice. One-half of the defendant's interest in his United Technologies pension plan shall be conveyed to the plaintiff by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This is to be effectuated within 30 days of the decree of dissolution. The court denies defendant's request regarding the wife's pension plan. The defendant husband may claim the minor child, Ashley, as an exemption on his income tax returns. The plaintiff wife may claim the minor child, Michael, as an exemption on her income tax returns. The defendant m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b13da8d2-721a-4660-b7f4-0b6b2fb6fcf8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3362807 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3362807 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b13da8d2-721a-4660-b7f4-0b6b2fb6fcf8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b13da8d2-721a-4660-b7f4-0b6b2fb6fcf8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dred Eighteen Dollars ($747,718.00) as of February 28, 2001. This amount plus any accrued interest thereon shall be equally divided as of April 30, 2001 subject to gains or losses up through the date of transfer. The division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\"). Any subsequent contribution of principal to the plan for the benefit of the plaintiff subsequent to February 28"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b13da8d2-721a-4660-b7f4-0b6b2fb6fcf8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362807-3362807","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: een Dollars ($747,718.00) as of February 28, 2001. This amount plus any accrued interest thereon shall be equally divided as of April 30, 2001 subject to gains or losses up through the date of transfer. The division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\"). Any subsequent contribution of principal to the plan for the benefit of the plaintiff subsequent to February 28"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3362995 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3362995 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: $58,000. The three accounts listed in numbers 5, 6 and 7 are owned by the defendant. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in the present value of each of the CT Page 744 three accounts. The transfer shall be by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\\QDRO\\\"). The court reserves jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement benefits."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o accomplish that result. 1. Clapboard Ridge Equity $ 305,000 2. Milton Road, Rye, New York $ 120,000 3. CMA Master Account $ 227,597 4. CMA Mortgage Escrow Account $ 226,000 CT Page 743 5. CMA Sub Account #6 (Retirement) $ 70,620 6. Merrill Lynch Retirement Account $ 41,000 7. Merrill Lynch 401 K $ 58,000 _________________ Total Value $ 1,048,217 1. The Clapboard Ridge , Greenwich property is awarded to the defendant, subject to the existing mortgage which shall be his sole obligation. 2. The Milton Road , Rye, New York property is awarded to the defendant, subject to the existing mortgage, for which the defenda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Equity $ 305,000 2. Milton Road, Rye, New York $ 120,000 3. CMA Master Account $ 227,597 4. CMA Mortgage Escrow Account $ 226,000 CT Page 743 5. CMA Sub Account #6 (Retirement) $ 70,620 6. Merrill Lynch Retirement Account $ 41,000 7. Merrill Lynch 401 K $ 58,000 _________________ Total Value $ 1,048,217 1. The Clapboard Ridge , Greenwich property is awarded to the defendant, subject to the existing mortgage which shall be his sole obligation. 2. The Milton Road , Rye, New York property is awarded to the defendant, subject to the existing mortgage, for which the defendant shall be solely responsible, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fe0c3bac-6716-482d-adff-8bac2a6a843b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3362995-3362995","title":"CourtListener opinion 3362995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The three accounts listed in numbers 5, 6 and 7 are owned by the defendant. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in the present value of each of the CT Page 744 three accounts. The transfer shall be by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\\QDRO\\\"). The court reserves jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement benefits."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3363246 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3363246 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: half interest in said plan to the wife and she will roll-over her one-half interest of said fund to a 401K or IRA of her choosing. The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary of his interest in said plan. The wife will draft the appropriate QDRO with the cooperation of the husband and the cooperation of the New York Times Pension Plan Administrator. The husband shall take any steps necessary to secure the post tax accessible portion of said plan so that each party will receive one-half share of that portion of the plan immediately. 18. The wife shall be entitled to a one-half interest in the New"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by Forbes, Incorporated and earns an annual gross base salary of $130,000.00. In 1991 he did receive a bonus of $2,500 which was a purely discretionary bonus. The husband had previously been employed by the New York Times and has a pension and a supplemental retirement plan from that organization. In 1991 he received a net bonus and severance package in the approximate amount of $27,000 from the New York Times. He has worked successfully over the years in the publishing business. He has worked for Golf Digest and Family Circle Magazine among others. The husband is a college graduate. The wife is also a college graduate. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sband is presently employed by Forbes, Incorporated and earns an annual gross base salary of $130,000.00. In 1991 he did receive a bonus of $2,500 which was a purely discretionary bonus. The husband had previously been employed by the New York Times and has a pension and a supplemental retirement plan from that organization. In 1991 he received a net bonus and severance package in the approximate amount of $27,000 from the New York Times. He has worked successfully over the years in the publishing business. He has worked for Golf Digest and Family Circle Magazine among others. The husband is a college graduate. The wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6217070f-0c98-4b51-ab78-d7a6fa064667","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363246-3363246","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363246","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): et proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties. 17. The husband has two retirement funds available to him as the result of his previous employment with the New York Times. The first one is the New York Times Supplemental Retirement Fund. It is a 401K Plan with a value of approximately $112,000.00. CT Page 1099 Said amount to be divided equally between the parties. The husband will transfer or assign his one-half interest in said plan to the wife and she will roll-over her one-half interest of said fund to a 401K or IRA of her choosing. The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary of hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce445eda-eb53-48c8-956a-42dc6db142bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3363340 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3363340 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce445eda-eb53-48c8-956a-42dc6db142bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce445eda-eb53-48c8-956a-42dc6db142bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t the value of the Merril Lynch Account #87712717 which was shown on Mr. McManus' financial affidavit as having a balance of $9,280 at the time of trial, was the amount transferred to the wife by court order thereafter. It was the court's intention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered concerning the Amerada Hess Pension was CT Page 3385 also to be valued as of the date or the trial. It is also clear to this court that the court did not expect any payments on the daughter's education at Laurelton Hall to be paid by him, post her reaching age eighteen. This court did not consider the contractual relationship with her school as bi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce445eda-eb53-48c8-956a-42dc6db142bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . McManus' financial affidavit as having a balance of $9,280 at the time of trial, was the amount transferred to the wife by court order thereafter. It was the court's intention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered concerning the Amerada Hess Pension was CT Page 3385 also to be valued as of the date or the trial. It is also clear to this court that the court did not expect any payments on the daughter's education at Laurelton Hall to be paid by him, post her reaching age eighteen. This court did not consider the contractual relationship with her school as binding the father post age eighteen. He is on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce445eda-eb53-48c8-956a-42dc6db142bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363340-3363340","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e of the Merril Lynch Account #87712717 which was shown on Mr. McManus' financial affidavit as having a balance of $9,280 at the time of trial, was the amount transferred to the wife by court order thereafter. It was the court's intention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered concerning the Amerada Hess Pension was CT Page 3385 also to be valued as of the date or the trial. It is also clear to this court that the court did not expect any payments on the daughter's education at Laurelton Hall to be paid by him, post her reaching age eighteen. This court did not consider the contractual relationship with her school as bi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3363463 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3363463 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: quire future assets and increased income, especially once she has her PHD. (The retirement fund has increased some $11,000 from the commencement of the trial). The wife shall receive one third of the husband's Paine Weber retirement fund, to be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (The husband shall retain his interest in the Gannet Fleming pension plans). Alimony: The wife presently earns $346 weekly as a graduate assistant (but can be expected to earn more in the not too distant future). Her health is good and she appears able to support herself. The husband earns $400 as a job site inspector (and gets a company car). He has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mless thereon. (After deducting the value of the land which the husband did not contribute to, and the home equity mortgage, there is a total equity value of approximately $80,000 thus the wife by this order gets $40,000 more than her half equity interest). Retirement Accounts: The husband has a Paine Weber retirement fund valued at approximately $122,700 and, in addition Gannet Fleming pensions valued at $36,000. The wife has only a nominal college retirement equity fund. She presently works as a graduate assistant, but should have a greater opportunity to acquire future assets and increased income, especially once she has he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as increased some $11,000 from the commencement of the trial). The wife shall receive one third of the husband's Paine Weber retirement fund, to be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (The husband shall retain his interest in the Gannet Fleming pension plans). Alimony: The wife presently earns $346 weekly as a graduate assistant (but can be expected to earn more in the not too distant future). Her health is good and she appears able to support herself. The husband earns $400 as a job site inspector (and gets a company car). He has always been able to earn a living and should be able to support himse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf9187d8-6c81-44d6-ae00-0e88c7c8638c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3363463-3363463","title":"CourtListener opinion 3363463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: re assets and increased income, especially once she has her PHD. (The retirement fund has increased some $11,000 from the commencement of the trial). The wife shall receive one third of the husband's Paine Weber retirement fund, to be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (The husband shall retain his interest in the Gannet Fleming pension plans). Alimony: The wife presently earns $346 weekly as a graduate assistant (but can be expected to earn more in the not too distant future). Her health is good and she appears able to support herself. The husband earns $400 as a job site inspector (and gets a company car). He has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3364125 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3364125 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y and hold the Plaintiff harmless from any liability whatsoever arising from that lien. The Plaintiff is awarded all of the Defendant's interest in his defined benefit pension plan at United States Tobacco Corporation. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant is awarded rights of survivorship in said pension, and the Plaintiff shall be considered the Defendant's surviving spouse. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is prepared and accepted by the plan administrator. The Plaintiff is awarded remaining interest of the Defendant in his 40"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arital residence resulting from the loan made to his brother. The Defendant shall indemnify and hold the Plaintiff harmless from any liability whatsoever arising from that lien. The Plaintiff is awarded all of the Defendant's interest in his defined benefit pension plan at United States Tobacco Corporation. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant is awarded rights of survivorship in said pension, and the Plaintiff shall be considered the Defendant's surviving spouse. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is prep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ing his job, the Defendant transferred all of his UST stock to an account at Merrill Lynch solely in his CT Page 2308 own name, despite the existence of a restraining order previously issued by this Court. At the time of quitting, the Defendant cashed out his 401K deferred compensation plan with a balance of $140,000. The Defendant then left the State of Connecticut and commenced residing in Massachusetts. When the Defendant removed himself to Massachusetts, he took with him all of the stock portfolio of the family, except for 1600 shares of UST stock which were physically in the wife's possession. The Defendant took"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"317e6b9d-d7dd-40f6-9dd4-55b3d3eba15f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364125-3364125","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364125","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the Plaintiff harmless from any liability whatsoever arising from that lien. The Plaintiff is awarded all of the Defendant's interest in his defined benefit pension plan at United States Tobacco Corporation. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant is awarded rights of survivorship in said pension, and the Plaintiff shall be considered the Defendant's surviving spouse. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is prepared and accepted by the plan administrator. The Plaintiff is awarded remaining interest of the Defendant in his 40"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac1e553e-9a90-4c8d-881b-adf793a6f592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3364741 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3364741 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac1e553e-9a90-4c8d-881b-adf793a6f592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac1e553e-9a90-4c8d-881b-adf793a6f592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be solely responsible for all costs associated with that residence, including the mortgage, taxes, insurance and condominium fees. The agreement further provided that the defendant would transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $18,000.00 from his Fidelity IRA by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and, in consideration of a release from a debt, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the sum of $5,000.00 cash within 30 days from the date of the dissolution. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac1e553e-9a90-4c8d-881b-adf793a6f592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3364741-3364741","title":"CourtListener opinion 3364741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: responsible for all costs associated with that residence, including the mortgage, taxes, insurance and condominium fees. The agreement further provided that the defendant would transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $18,000.00 from his Fidelity IRA by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and, in consideration of a release from a debt, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the sum of $5,000.00 cash within 30 days from the date of the dissolution. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3365249 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3365249 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds Account); d . Citibank Account; e . Paine Webber Money Market Account; CT Page 6538 f . Stock Purchase Account (186+ units); g . E and Y Defined Benefit Plan. (8) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his interest in the Fidelity 401 K Retirement plan listed on his financial affidavit. The value of the plaintiffs interest shall be as of the date of this decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. The defendant's share shall be credited with any increases and appreciations and shall be debi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e Account (186+ units); g . E and Y Defined Benefit Plan. (8) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his interest in the Fidelity 401 K Retirement plan listed on his financial affidavit. The value of the plaintiffs interest shall be as of the date of this decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. The defendant's share shall be credited with any increases and appreciations and shall be debited with any decreases and depreciations from the date of decree dissolving the marriage until the date of distrib"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): urchase Account (186+ units); g . E and Y Defined Benefit Plan. (8) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his interest in the Fidelity 401 K Retirement plan listed on his financial affidavit. The value of the plaintiffs interest shall be as of the date of this decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. The defendant's share shall be credited with any increases and appreciations and shall be debited with any decreases and depreciations from the date of decree dissolving the marriage until the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e1560043-746c-4473-9fca-383fe9cc084e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365249-3365249","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s, Mutual Funds Account); d . Citibank Account; e . Paine Webber Money Market Account; CT Page 6538 f . Stock Purchase Account (186+ units); g . E and Y Defined Benefit Plan. (8) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his interest in the Fidelity 401 K Retirement plan listed on his financial affidavit. The value of the plaintiffs interest shall be as of the date of this decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. The defendant's share shall be credited with any increases and appreciations and shall be debi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3365787 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3365787 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary to effectuate said order in conformance with the requirements of the Plan Administrator. Each party is required to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the provisions of this order. The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of this order."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ement and/or pay any and/or all of the debts listed on his financial affidavit dated May 4, 2000. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify her for any liability on the 1998 Federal Tax liability of approximately $9,600.00. 8. PENSION OR RETIREMENT PLAN The defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sition agreement and/or pay any and/or all of the debts listed on his financial affidavit dated May 4, 2000. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify her for any liability on the 1998 Federal Tax liability of approximately $9,600.00. 8. PENSION OR RETIREMENT PLAN The defendant is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bebc0347-e62b-473b-b4f7-f3c27b3792f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3365787-3365787","title":"CourtListener opinion 3365787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt is the beneficiary of a Fleet Bank \\Single Life Annuity\\\" plan not presently on payout status. The defendant is ordered to transfer and/or assign to the plaintiff 50% of the value of said plan accrued as of the date of this judgment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is ordered to prepare the documents necessary to effectuate said order in conformance with the requirements of the Plan Administrator. Each party is required to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the provisions of this order. The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of this order."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"734f8883-d79d-4b81-a624-e72c93da938f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625","title":"CourtListener opinion 3367625","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3367625 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3367625 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"734f8883-d79d-4b81-a624-e72c93da938f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625","title":"CourtListener opinion 3367625","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"734f8883-d79d-4b81-a624-e72c93da938f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625","title":"CourtListener opinion 3367625","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aintiff, child support in the amount of $227.00 per week, a figure which is as recommended by the Child Support Guidelines. The Defendant shall be entitled to claim his daughter as a dependent for income tax purposes. The Defendant is ordered to transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO], an interest in one half of his 401K Plan calculated at the date of this dissolution. The Defendant is ordered to maintain for the benefit of the minor child comprehensive health insurance for so long as he has a support obligation for the child. Unreimbursed medical and dental expenses are to be shared equally by the parties. The Defendant shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"734f8883-d79d-4b81-a624-e72c93da938f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625","title":"CourtListener opinion 3367625","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s as recommended by the Child Support Guidelines. The Defendant shall be entitled to claim his daughter as a dependent for income tax purposes. The Defendant is ordered to transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO], an interest in one half of his 401K Plan calculated at the date of this dissolution. The Defendant is ordered to maintain for the benefit of the minor child comprehensive health insurance for so long as he has a support obligation for the child. Unreimbursed medical and dental expenses are to be shared equally by the parties. The Defendant shall maintain $100,000 in life insurance for the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"734f8883-d79d-4b81-a624-e72c93da938f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3367625-3367625","title":"CourtListener opinion 3367625","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hild support in the amount of $227.00 per week, a figure which is as recommended by the Child Support Guidelines. The Defendant shall be entitled to claim his daughter as a dependent for income tax purposes. The Defendant is ordered to transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO], an interest in one half of his 401K Plan calculated at the date of this dissolution. The Defendant is ordered to maintain for the benefit of the minor child comprehensive health insurance for so long as he has a support obligation for the child. Unreimbursed medical and dental expenses are to be shared equally by the parties. The Defendant shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3369712 Docket: Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3369712 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: loans, with the defendant as beneficiary during such time as he is obligated to pay alimony to her in an amount sufficient to pay the then present value of his remaining alimony obligation at the time of his death. With respect to the division of assets, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the defendant shall be entitled to one half the benefit to which the plaintiff is entitled in the Sun Microsystems defined benefit pension plan. Counsel for the plaintiff shall prepare the appropriate order. Additionally, the plaintiff shall transfer the sum of eighteen thousand ($18,000) dollars from his 401k account to an IRA account in the defendant's n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: yee Stock Purchase Plan through his present employer. The asset value of this account as of November 29, 1998 was seven thousand, eight hundred and twenty ($7,820) dollars. Through a former employer, Memorex, the plaintiff has an interest in a defined benefit pension plan from which he has the right to receive five hundred and sixty ($560) dollars a month at retirement age. The plaintiff testified credibly that because the plan was underfunded his ultimate receipt of the full amount of this pension is uncertain. The defendant is a forty-three year old college graduate, CT Page 5277 presently unemployed, with a sporadi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): March, 1998 with the anticipation that his earnings will eventually at least match the level he enjoyed at Sun. When the parties were married in 1987, the plaintiff was earning approximately sixty-three thousand ($63,000) dollars annually. The plaintiff has a 401k plan with an account balance of approximately forty-seven thousand ($47,000) dollars, net of a thirty thousand ($30,000) dollar loan the plaintiff borrowed from the plan during the pendency of this action. The court notes the plaintiff also borrowed approximately nine thousand, six hundred and eighty-eight ($9,688) dollars from a C.M. Life Universal Life po"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8efcd9f0-9050-41d7-8d26-04955bac145c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3369712-3369712","title":"CourtListener opinion 3369712","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Number CV 960565689S. By pleading dated November 20","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: h the defendant as beneficiary during such time as he is obligated to pay alimony to her in an amount sufficient to pay the then present value of his remaining alimony obligation at the time of his death. With respect to the division of assets, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the defendant shall be entitled to one half the benefit to which the plaintiff is entitled in the Sun Microsystems defined benefit pension plan. Counsel for the plaintiff shall prepare the appropriate order. Additionally, the plaintiff shall transfer the sum of eighteen thousand ($18,000) dollars from his 401k account to an IRA account in the defendant's n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14c1aa31-519f-47d9-82fb-076d9af416cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3371661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3371661 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3371661 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14c1aa31-519f-47d9-82fb-076d9af416cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3371661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14c1aa31-519f-47d9-82fb-076d9af416cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3371661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: able to the Plaintiff for income tax purposes and deductible to the Defendant for income tax purposes. In addition, the Plaintiff shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant's KPMG Peat Marwick pension. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall be responsible for preparation of said order with the cost of preparation to be shared equally between the parties. The QDRO shall be submitted to the court for approval and the court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to any disputes with respect to this order and said QDRO. 3. Medical Insurance: The Plaintiff shall be entitled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14c1aa31-519f-47d9-82fb-076d9af416cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3371661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nd an actuary, and is a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries. Since February 1996, he has not had any significant employment. From August 1996 to present, he has received $15,510 per month of tax free general disability benefits and $2,619 per month from a KPMG pension. While the Defendant recently began work as a clerk at Barnes and Noble, he encountered difficulty with this position and now works as a billing clerk at Catholic Family Charities. His highest pay rate for this work has been $8.50 per hour. He has been able, and has, prepared tax returns for himself and for the Plaintiff. It is highly unlikely that the Defe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14c1aa31-519f-47d9-82fb-076d9af416cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3371661-3371661","title":"CourtListener opinion 3371661","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e Plaintiff for income tax purposes and deductible to the Defendant for income tax purposes. In addition, the Plaintiff shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant's KPMG Peat Marwick pension. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall be responsible for preparation of said order with the cost of preparation to be shared equally between the parties. The QDRO shall be submitted to the court for approval and the court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to any disputes with respect to this order and said QDRO. 3. Medical Insurance: The Plaintiff shall be entitled"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67b8252d-3504-485c-a574-3412cc949a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903","title":"CourtListener opinion 3462903","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3462903 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3462903 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67b8252d-3504-485c-a574-3412cc949a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903","title":"CourtListener opinion 3462903","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67b8252d-3504-485c-a574-3412cc949a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903","title":"CourtListener opinion 3462903","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: elations order clearly specify each plan to which such order applies. Our recommendation was based in large part upon the requirements of federal law, specifically, those provisions of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 defining a domestic relations order as a qualified domestic relations order if the order meets the requirements of Section 414(p) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. We quote that portion of the statue herein: (p) Qualified domestic relations order defined. — For purposes of this subsection and section 401(a)(13) — (1) In general. — (A) Qualified domestic relations order. — The term \\qualified domestic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67b8252d-3504-485c-a574-3412cc949a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3462903-3462903","title":"CourtListener opinion 3462903","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: FRS have the authority to divide a member's benefits and pay a portion of such divided benefits to a third party payee based on an order that expressly applies to a different retirement system? In response, it was the recommendation of this office that the domestic relations order clearly specify each plan to which such order applies. Our recommendation was based in large part upon the requirements of federal law, specifically, those provisions of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 defining a domestic relations order as a qualified domestic relations order if the order meets the requirements of Section 414(p) of the U.S. Internal Reve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3685977 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3685977 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: JUDGMENT ENTRY. This appeal is considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12, and this Judgment Entry shall not be considered an Opinion of the Court pursuant to S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 3(A). Defendant-appellant John Zerbe appeals from a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. He raises two assignments of error for our review. In July 2003, the trial court issued a decree of divorce terminating John's and plaintiff-appellee Sandra Zerbe's marriage and ordering an equitable division of their marital property. Their marital property in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: our review. In July 2003, the trial court issued a decree of divorce terminating John's and plaintiff-appellee Sandra Zerbe's marriage and ordering an equitable division of their marital property. Their marital property included, among other things, John's pension plan with General Electric (GE). In January 2004, both John and Sandra appealed from the divorce decree. We ultimately remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of a reasonable attorney-fee award, for a determination of the value of John's medical practice, and for reconsideration of \\the effect of that new value on the overall property divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: NTRY. This appeal is considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12, and this Judgment Entry shall not be considered an Opinion of the Court pursuant to S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 3(A). Defendant-appellant John Zerbe appeals from a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. He raises two assignments of error for our review. In July 2003, the trial court issued a decree of divorce terminating John's and plaintiff-appellee Sandra Zerbe's marriage and ordering an equitable division of their marital property. Their marital property in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e7333f8-b176-47e9-9cee-6e2c97322f5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3685977-3685977","title":"CourtListener opinion 3685977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the divorce decree. We ultimately remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of a reasonable attorney-fee award, for a determination of the value of John's medical practice, and for reconsideration of \\the effect of that new value on the overall property division.\\\" 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e182ddb5-4be3-498e-8299-37bbeacf27b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983","title":"CourtListener opinion 3686983","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3686983 Extracted reporter citation: 559 N.E.2d 1292. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3686983 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e182ddb5-4be3-498e-8299-37bbeacf27b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983","title":"CourtListener opinion 3686983","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e182ddb5-4be3-498e-8299-37bbeacf27b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983","title":"CourtListener opinion 3686983","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177 , 559 N.E.2d 1292 , which would result in her receiving $89,695.70 of Robert's retirement benefits. We conclude that Hoyt, supra, is distinguishable from this case because it involved a contested divorce decree and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), whereas this case does not involve a QDRO and involves a decree of dissolution incorporating a separation agreement entered into by the parties. We conclude that the determinative issue in this case is the interpretation of the phrase \\accrued through 6/30/88\\\" in the separation agreement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e182ddb5-4be3-498e-8299-37bbeacf27b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983","title":"CourtListener opinion 3686983","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Sharron M. Pohl appeals from an order dismissing her motion for contempt against defendant-appellee Robert J. Pohl and ordering Robert to pay Sharron $12,681.67, her share of his retirement benefits, pursuant to their separation agreement. Sharron contends that the trial court abused its discretion in its calculation of her share of Robert's retirement benefits, because it failed to use the coverture fraction analysis articulated in Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177 , 559 N.E.2d 1292 , which would result in her receiving $89,695.70 of Robert's re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e182ddb5-4be3-498e-8299-37bbeacf27b6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3686983-3686983","title":"CourtListener opinion 3686983","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"559 N.E.2d 1292","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177 , 559 N.E.2d 1292 , which would result in her receiving $89,695.70 of Robert's retirement benefits. We conclude that Hoyt, supra, is distinguishable from this case because it involved a contested divorce decree and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), whereas this case does not involve a QDRO and involves a decree of dissolution incorporating a separation agreement entered into by the parties. We conclude that the determinative issue in this case is the interpretation of the phrase \\accrued through 6/30/88\\\" in the separation agreement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3687877 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3687877 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ension. It was appellant's desire to retain this asset and to have appellee's interest therein, based on a stipulated present value at the time of divorce, offset by granting her a greater share of other available assets. Appellee, on the other hand, sought a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\") entitling her to an equal share of the marital portion of this fund at the time of its actual distribution upon appellant's retirement. The lower court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he parties were granted a divorce. In its order, the court divided the marital property and ordered appellant to pay appellee spousal support. Appellant appeals, naming two assignments of error. I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DIVIDE THE VALUE OF THE PENSION AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE. The issue under this assignment of error concerns the method by which the lower court divided appellant's UAW pension. It was appellant's desire to retain this asset and to have appellee's interest therein, based on a stipulated present value at the time of divorce, offset by granting her a greater share of other available assets. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: was appellant's desire to retain this asset and to have appellee's interest therein, based on a stipulated present value at the time of divorce, offset by granting her a greater share of other available assets. Appellee, on the other hand, sought a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\") entitling her to an equal share of the marital portion of this fund at the time of its actual distribution upon appellant's retirement. The lower court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5df45177-04cb-4082-a4e5-bcb1a123c557","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3687877-3687877","title":"CourtListener opinion 3687877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: st therein, based on a stipulated present value at the time of divorce, offset by granting her a greater share of other available assets. Appellee, on the other hand, sought a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\") entitling her to an equal share of the marital portion of this fund at the time of its actual distribution upon appellant's retirement. The lower court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecf1ce87-8e45-446e-bbb5-8691d127c238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129","title":"CourtListener opinion 3692129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3692129 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3692129 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecf1ce87-8e45-446e-bbb5-8691d127c238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129","title":"CourtListener opinion 3692129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecf1ce87-8e45-446e-bbb5-8691d127c238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129","title":"CourtListener opinion 3692129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cript, overruled the objections, but modified the child support retroactive to June 10, 1997. Subsequently on March 25, 1998, the court granted the divorce and followed the magistrate's recommendation in that it ordered Denise to pay John $6,495 by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which transferred funds from her TRW pension to John's TRW pension, and also required John to pay 28% of Dr. Thomas Hall's fee. John now appeals raising four assignments of error for our review. I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. John asserts the court abused its discretion when it denied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecf1ce87-8e45-446e-bbb5-8691d127c238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129","title":"CourtListener opinion 3692129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ive to June 10, 1997. Subsequently on March 25, 1998, the court granted the divorce and followed the magistrate's recommendation in that it ordered Denise to pay John $6,495 by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which transferred funds from her TRW pension to John's TRW pension, and also required John to pay 28% of Dr. Thomas Hall's fee. John now appeals raising four assignments of error for our review. I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. John asserts the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for attorney fees in connection wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecf1ce87-8e45-446e-bbb5-8691d127c238","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3692129-3692129","title":"CourtListener opinion 3692129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rruled the objections, but modified the child support retroactive to June 10, 1997. Subsequently on March 25, 1998, the court granted the divorce and followed the magistrate's recommendation in that it ordered Denise to pay John $6,495 by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which transferred funds from her TRW pension to John's TRW pension, and also required John to pay 28% of Dr. Thomas Hall's fee. John now appeals raising four assignments of error for our review. I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. John asserts the court abused its discretion when it denied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3694046 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3694046 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s additional proceeds from appellee's personal injury settlement. The magistrate also awarded appellee one-half of the marital portion of appellant's Detroit Edison Savings Plan; one-half of the marital portion of appellant's pension plan to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\"); one-half of the marital portion of the Detroit Edison stock (no less than one hundred fifty-five shares); one-half of the Olde Discount Market Accounts; one-half of the Montgomery Fund; and two U.S. Savings Bonds at $250 each."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o be employed by Detroit Edison and earns approximately $80,000 per year. The court found the following assets to be marital: 1) Detroit Edison Savings Plan: $103,180 ($123,564 total, less $20,834 pre-marital value attributed to appellant); 2) Appellant's pension plan; 3) Detroit Edison Stock (310 shares); 4) Olde Discount Market Account: $41,312; 5) Appellant's Olde Discount IRA: $10,375 ($15,871 less $5,496 premarital value attributed to appellant); 6) Appellee's Montgomery Fund: $2,243; 7) Four U.S. Savings Bonds valued at $250 each. The court awarded to appellee the following as non-marital property:"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tion, appellant owned an Olde Discount Account which contained nine hundred sixty shares of Detroit Edison stock, six hundred fifty of the shares were considered pre-marital; the remaining three hundred ten shares were marital property. Appellant also owned a 401(k) account which was worth $123,564, with $20,384 of the assets attributed to pre-marital funds. The parties further stipulated that appellee owned the residence prior to the marriage; that appellee's Edward Jones IRA account, valued at $7,486, was marital property; that the remainder of the Edward Jones Account (approximately $17,000) was what was left of a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ece4f711-5339-4584-9858-522083ea4ef3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3694046-3694046","title":"CourtListener opinion 3694046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: al proceeds from appellee's personal injury settlement. The magistrate also awarded appellee one-half of the marital portion of appellant's Detroit Edison Savings Plan; one-half of the marital portion of appellant's pension plan to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\"); one-half of the marital portion of the Detroit Edison stock (no less than one hundred fifty-five shares); one-half of the Olde Discount Market Accounts; one-half of the Montgomery Fund; and two U.S. Savings Bonds at $250 each."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed19ae20-8ae4-4e55-9428-ec01c3eac3b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698319","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3698319 Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3698319 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed19ae20-8ae4-4e55-9428-ec01c3eac3b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698319","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed19ae20-8ae4-4e55-9428-ec01c3eac3b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698319","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: marital property was divided almost equally: $214,257.00 to Mr. Shuler and $214,227 to Ms. Shuler. Mr. Shuler has appealed asserting three assignments of error. II. A. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED THE DISCRETION AFFORDED IT BY LAW WHEN IT DECLARED [MR. SHULER'S] PENSION TO BE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF [MR. SHULER] AND THEN ORDERED THE SAME TO BE DIVIDED IN EQUAL HALVES AS PER A QUALIFIFED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Shuler has argued that the trial court incorrectly awarded him one-hundred percent of his pension plan, only to turn around in the following paragraph and order that fifty perce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed19ae20-8ae4-4e55-9428-ec01c3eac3b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698319","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sserting three assignments of error. II. A. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED THE DISCRETION AFFORDED IT BY LAW WHEN IT DECLARED [MR. SHULER'S] PENSION TO BE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF [MR. SHULER] AND THEN ORDERED THE SAME TO BE DIVIDED IN EQUAL HALVES AS PER A QUALIFIFED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Shuler has argued that the trial court incorrectly awarded him one-hundred percent of his pension plan, only to turn around in the following paragraph and order that fifty percent of the plan's benefits be paid to Ms. Shuler. This argument was waived by counsel at oral arguments, and thus, will not be addressed. Mr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed19ae20-8ae4-4e55-9428-ec01c3eac3b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698319-3698319","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698319","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: Plaintiff-Appellant Truman Shuler has appealed from a judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that ordered a property division and spousal support when it granted a divorce between Mr. Shuler and Retta Jo Shuler, Defendant-Appellee. This Court affirms. I. Mr. Shuler and Ms. Shuler were married on May 13, 1967, and have two children, now emancipated. On March 16, 1998, the parties were granted a divorce. In its divorce decree, the trial court divided the marital property and orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15d9c9c5-a3dc-44d2-be19-b0ec38ff3cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3698753 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3698753 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15d9c9c5-a3dc-44d2-be19-b0ec38ff3cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15d9c9c5-a3dc-44d2-be19-b0ec38ff3cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3698753-3698753","title":"CourtListener opinion 3698753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: He claimed he told her about the inactive status, but defendant said she did not understand the effect of it. On July 31, 1991, the Pennsylvania firm reached a settlement with the ex-husband for $407,000, $100,000 to be paid immediately and $307,000 to be a QDRO transferred from the ex-husband's qualified profit sharing account. On August 25, 1992, $20,000 was paid to plaintiff by the defendant noting it was one-fifth legal fees. When repeated attempts by plaintiff to collect the balance of the contingency fee were unsuccessful, plaintiff instituted the present litigation. On October 3, 1995, plaintiff filed suit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78af1e05-2ae4-4dd3-bf6d-cd2c8934c5ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248","title":"CourtListener opinion 3701248","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3701248 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3701248 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78af1e05-2ae4-4dd3-bf6d-cd2c8934c5ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248","title":"CourtListener opinion 3701248","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78af1e05-2ae4-4dd3-bf6d-cd2c8934c5ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248","title":"CourtListener opinion 3701248","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or withholding and the denominator is the total amount designated in all of the notices as current support. Given the plain reading of the statutes, we find appellant is correct in that only sixty percent of his monthly pension benefit can be subject to the QDRO. The remainder of appellant's spousal support obligation must come from appellant's other income i.e., job and funds received from other sources. Assignment of Error I is granted. II, III, IV Appellant challenges the trial court's award of spousal support because it did not reflect a change of circumstance, did not reflect appellee's need for sustenance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78af1e05-2ae4-4dd3-bf6d-cd2c8934c5ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248","title":"CourtListener opinion 3701248","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: come derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 [ 3105.17 (1)] of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because he will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties; (I) The relative"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78af1e05-2ae4-4dd3-bf6d-cd2c8934c5ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3701248-3701248","title":"CourtListener opinion 3701248","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S STATUTORY RIGHTS WHEN IT ORDERED A PAYMENT FROM APPELLANT'S PENSION FOR SUSTENANCE ALIMONY WHICH VIOLATED RC § 3113.21 . II THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S STATUTORY RIGHTS WHEN IT INCREASED THE AWARD OF SUSTENANCE ALIMONY WITHOUT FINDING A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH VIOLATED RC § 3105.18 (D) AND (E). III THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, ERRED"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3703077 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3703077 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pension or retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177 , 179 . Dealing with a public pension, such as the PERS pension plan in the instant case, is particularly troublesome, as such plans are not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (Q.D.R.O.) Sprankle v. Sprankle (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 129 , 134 . It is well settled that in a divorce matter, the trial court should strive to disentangle the parties' economic partnership whenever the circumstances permit. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 182 . However, when dealing with unmatured benefits which are not subject to a Q.D.R.O., the only means to dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: h of whom were emancipated at the time of divorce. The court granted a divorce to appellee on the basis that the parties had been living separate and apart. The court proceeded to divide the marital property and debt. Included among the marital assets was a retirement account through the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio, produced through appellee's employment as Sheriff of Coshocton County, together with purchased credit. The court found the PERS account to have a fair market value of $216,241, and awarded the proceeds of the account to appellee. However, in order to equitably distribute the property, the court ordered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IN THAT SAID VALUES WERE UNDER CALCULATED. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT UTILIZING THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) VALUES IN DETERMINING THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE PENSION. Appellee David A. Corbett assigns three errors on cross appeal: ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THE DURATION OF THE MARRIAGE AS THE FINAL HEARING DATE. II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT FROM APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT TO APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE. III. THE TRIAL COURT A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a16a345-a84a-44fc-b457-f9e7cbaaff62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3703077-3703077","title":"CourtListener opinion 3703077","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177 , 179 . Dealing with a public pension, such as the PERS pension plan in the instant case, is particularly troublesome, as such plans are not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (Q.D.R.O.) Sprankle v. Sprankle (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 129 , 134 . It is well settled that in a divorce matter, the trial court should strive to disentangle the parties' economic partnership whenever the circumstances permit. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 182 . However, when dealing with unmatured benefits which are not subject to a Q.D.R.O., the only means to dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3186f9f-3acd-4dcf-8b7a-c101add013f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594","title":"CourtListener opinion 3705594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3705594 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3705594 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3186f9f-3acd-4dcf-8b7a-c101add013f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594","title":"CourtListener opinion 3705594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3186f9f-3acd-4dcf-8b7a-c101add013f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594","title":"CourtListener opinion 3705594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Sylvia Jane Himes appeals from the October 1, 2002, Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶ 2} On June 28, 1991, appellant Sylvia Jane Himes filed a complaint for divorce against appellee Kenneth Himes. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed on August 18, 1992, the parties were granted a divorce. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3186f9f-3acd-4dcf-8b7a-c101add013f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594","title":"CourtListener opinion 3705594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Himes. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed on August 18, 1992, the parties were granted a divorce. The parties' Separation Agreement, which was incorporated into the Divorce Decree, provided in paragraph 6 as follows: {¶ 3} \\6. Pension Rights. The Parties acknowledge that the Husband is a participant in The Timken Company hourly employees' pension plan. The parties agree that the Husband's pension rights acquired through said pension plan shall be divided 75% to the Husband and 25% to the Wife. The Wife shall have the right to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring into th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a3186f9f-3acd-4dcf-8b7a-c101add013f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3705594-3705594","title":"CourtListener opinion 3705594","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Sylvia Jane Himes appeals from the October 1, 2002, Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶ 2} On June 28, 1991, appellant Sylvia Jane Himes filed a complaint for divorce against appellee Kenneth Himes. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed on August 18, 1992, the parties were granted a divorce. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d09e2e6a-2353-44c9-a6b1-db00055b53e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3707131 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3707131 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d09e2e6a-2353-44c9-a6b1-db00055b53e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d09e2e6a-2353-44c9-a6b1-db00055b53e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e parties entered into an agreement under which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $55,000 in back child support. The parties also agreed to submit to a magistrate the remaining issues of interest, life insurance, contempt, attorney fees, and the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\"). As pertinent to defendant's appeal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d09e2e6a-2353-44c9-a6b1-db00055b53e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707131-3707131","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: entered into an agreement under which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $55,000 in back child support. The parties also agreed to submit to a magistrate the remaining issues of interest, life insurance, contempt, attorney fees, and the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\"). As pertinent to defendant's appeal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4877383-7dd6-4feb-b9b8-d6382163d503","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3707252 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3707252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4877383-7dd6-4feb-b9b8-d6382163d503","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4877383-7dd6-4feb-b9b8-d6382163d503","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vision. The parties were divorced by virtue of a Final Agreed Judgment Entry and Decree of Divorce, filed May 23, 1994, and amended June 9, 1994. The divorce decree provided for the division of appellant's retirement benefits between the parties pursuant to a QDRO plan and separate entry filed subsequent to the filing of the decree. On May 26, 1995, a QDRO was prepared and filed with the court. Paragraph 8 of the QDRO, addressing the retirement benefits, states: Payments shall continue to Former Spouse for the remainder of Employee's lifetime, however, should Former Spouse remarry or predecease the Employee, then s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4877383-7dd6-4feb-b9b8-d6382163d503","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: um County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. The parties were divorced by virtue of a Final Agreed Judgment Entry and Decree of Divorce, filed May 23, 1994, and amended June 9, 1994. The divorce decree provided for the division of appellant's retirement benefits between the parties pursuant to a QDRO plan and separate entry filed subsequent to the filing of the decree. On May 26, 1995, a QDRO was prepared and filed with the court. Paragraph 8 of the QDRO, addressing the retirement benefits, states: Payments shall continue to Former Spouse for the remainder of Employee's lifetime, however, should Former Spouse re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4877383-7dd6-4feb-b9b8-d6382163d503","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3707252-3707252","title":"CourtListener opinion 3707252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1996, appellant retired. Appellee remarried on October 18, 1996. Thereafter, appellant notified appellee her portion of the retirement benefits would not be disbursed because of her remarriage. On November 27, 1996, appellee filed a Motion to Amend Qualified Domestic Relations Order requesting the trial court modify the QDRO on the basis the sentence, \\should Former Spouse remarry"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3709220 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3709220 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urt.] OPINION Defendant-appellant Jack Emerson appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to, and adopting, a magistrate's decision. In her decision, the magistrate refused to substitute Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) prepared by Mr. Emerson's attorney for QDRO's prepared by Mrs. Emerson's counsel, on the basis that the documents were substantially the same. Mr. Emerson contends that the magistrate's decision was incorrect, and that the trial court erred by adopting it. Mr. Emerson also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence proffer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ties. The portion of the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce relevant to this appeal provides as follows: 9. RETIREMENT. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator at Wright Patt Credit Union * * * for the Plaintiff's retirement plan, Wright Patt Credit Union, Inc. Employee Defined Pension Plan. The formula that shall be utilized in said QDRO shall be as follows: The Defendant shall receive a one-half (~) share of the pension plan as of the date of November 12, 1993. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator, * * * for the Defendant's Civil Serv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ate nor germane to the magistrate's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed . I Jack and Linda Emerson were divorced on January 18, 1994. A final judgment and decree of divorce was entered which, among other things, divided the pension plans of both parties. The portion of the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce relevant to this appeal provides as follows: 9. RETIREMENT. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator at Wright Patt Credit Union * * * for the Plaintiff's retirement plan, Wright Patt Credit Union, Inc. Employee Defined Pension Plan. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21fc7a1b-755e-4b15-845d-8174784f3c6c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3709220-3709220","title":"CourtListener opinion 3709220","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ION Defendant-appellant Jack Emerson appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to, and adopting, a magistrate's decision. In her decision, the magistrate refused to substitute Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) prepared by Mr. Emerson's attorney for QDRO's prepared by Mrs. Emerson's counsel, on the basis that the documents were substantially the same. Mr. Emerson contends that the magistrate's decision was incorrect, and that the trial court erred by adopting it. Mr. Emerson also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence proffer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3712310 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3712310 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bank account that was co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \\The trial court committed reversible error in making a division of property which was not equitable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 00. In total, the court found that approximately $9,400.00 worth of improvements occurred within the marital home during the term of the marriage. The court, however, did not order any reimbursement to appellee. {¶ 4} The court also examined appellee's pension. It determined that the pension would yield a monthly benefit substantially less than appellee's current wage. The court also noted that, because the pension is taxable, it would be reduced even further. The court then took into consideration the disparity of income between the two parties. Specifically, it noted that appellant's yearly income from disabili"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d to distribute any portion of appellee's pension. In support of its decision, the court also made mention of appellant's $9,000 bank account that was co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \\The trial co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b43980f0-86bf-49e8-989b-9f88456f20e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3712310-3712310","title":"CourtListener opinion 3712310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \\The trial court committed reversible error in making a division of property which was not equitable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55c7c457-578d-4958-a8a9-68328c9efa46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457","title":"CourtListener opinion 3713457","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3713457 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3713457 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55c7c457-578d-4958-a8a9-68328c9efa46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457","title":"CourtListener opinion 3713457","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55c7c457-578d-4958-a8a9-68328c9efa46","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3713457-3713457","title":"CourtListener opinion 3713457","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: {¶ 1} Although I agree with much of the majority's rationale and its ultimate resolution of the case, I cannot agree at this time with ¶ 27 and 28 of its opinion. The majority gives three reasons for overruling Appellant's first assignment of error. In the first of those reasons, the majority concludes that the separation agreement would be an illegal contract if it required the parties to go to mediation before taking any legal action. According to the majority, any such provision would conflict with R.C. 3105.65 (B), which grants courts continuing jurisdiction over issues regarding parental rights and responsibilities. In making this novel conclusion, the majority ignores the fac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d706dcbc-23a6-499f-9837-a266171bc426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373","title":"CourtListener opinion 3715373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3715373 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3715373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d706dcbc-23a6-499f-9837-a266171bc426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373","title":"CourtListener opinion 3715373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d706dcbc-23a6-499f-9837-a266171bc426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373","title":"CourtListener opinion 3715373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , the trial court journalized a judgment entry of divorce which provided that: (1) the appellee be granted a divorce from the appellant; (2) the voluntary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d706dcbc-23a6-499f-9837-a266171bc426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373","title":"CourtListener opinion 3715373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: untary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (6) the 1973 Gulfstar Trawler be sold and all net profits be equally divided between the appellant and appelle"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d706dcbc-23a6-499f-9837-a266171bc426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3715373-3715373","title":"CourtListener opinion 3715373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l court journalized a judgment entry of divorce which provided that: (1) the appellee be granted a divorce from the appellant; (2) the voluntary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12dd9f13-c5a0-499e-8377-06b90e4fc955","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3717862 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3717862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12dd9f13-c5a0-499e-8377-06b90e4fc955","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12dd9f13-c5a0-499e-8377-06b90e4fc955","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ad been granted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company after serving the company for at least thirty years. After retiring Harry moved to Bradenton, Florida, where he currently lives. While in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12dd9f13-c5a0-499e-8377-06b90e4fc955","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d the marital home coupled with the outstanding mortgages to Sharon. To offset the equity in the home that had been granted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12dd9f13-c5a0-499e-8377-06b90e4fc955","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717862-3717862","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717862","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: anted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company after serving the company for at least thirty years. After retiring Harry moved to Bradenton, Florida, where he currently lives. While in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3717864 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3717864 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jerome Kingery, appeals the December 28, 2004 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas and the accompanying Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , July 1 st , 1978, to the date of the Divorce hearing, March 14, 2000. [Jacqueline] shall not share in any early retirement subsidies of supplements, which might be otherwise payable to [Jerome]. * * * For purposes of calculating [Jacqueline's portion of the retirement benefits], the Plan Administrator is instructed to use, if applicable, [Jerome's] average compensation and/or the benefit multiplier in effect under the plan as of [Jacqueline's] benefit commencement date. {¶ 3} Jerome retired from his job at International Truck and Engine Corporation on February 1, 2004. He opted for early retirement under a \\window program"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: elations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a hearing on March 14, 2000, and the trial court filed a judgment entry and Decree of Divorce on April 26, 2000. The divorce decree provides as follows: 13. The Defendant, Jerome Kingery is the owner of a pension plan at International Harvester. The Plai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef1745b3-25f8-4d88-95d1-d38cc6df4e8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3717864-3717864","title":"CourtListener opinion 3717864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jerome Kingery, appeals the December 28, 2004 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas and the accompanying Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3720555 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3720555 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n would reside with Raymond, while Stacy would receive parenting time and pay child support, effective October 2003. Raymond continued to pay support to Stacy. {¶ 5} The trial court journalized the divorce decree on February 2, 2004, and the associated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on May 5, 2004. Raymond timely appealed, asserting six assignments of error for review. II. A. First Assignment of Error \\The trial court erred when it failed to include appellant's spousal support payments as income to appellee and failed to deduct said payments from the income of appellant for the purpose of calculating appellee's child support"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ymond's property was used as down payment on the marital residence, purchased on November 18, 1993. Prior to and throughout the marriage, Raymond was employed as a pharmacist, which paid him a salary of $89,700 at the time of the divorce and included a 401(k) retirement plan. Stacy had worked a variety of jobs and was most recently employed as a waitress, which paid her a 2002 income of $10,953. At the time of the divorce, Stacy was attending court reporting school, which provided no income. {¶ 3} In March 2002, Stacy took the children, left the home and filed a complaint for divorce, including a motion for spousal and c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n of Raymond's property was used as down payment on the marital residence, purchased on November 18, 1993. Prior to and throughout the marriage, Raymond was employed as a pharmacist, which paid him a salary of $89,700 at the time of the divorce and included a 401(k) retirement plan. Stacy had worked a variety of jobs and was most recently employed as a waitress, which paid her a 2002 income of $10,953. At the time of the divorce, Stacy was attending court reporting school, which provided no income. {¶ 3} In March 2002, Stacy took the children, left the home and filed a complaint for divorce, including a motion f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e34efa-7861-481f-977a-d267dd189af7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3720555-3720555","title":"CourtListener opinion 3720555","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: side with Raymond, while Stacy would receive parenting time and pay child support, effective October 2003. Raymond continued to pay support to Stacy. {¶ 5} The trial court journalized the divorce decree on February 2, 2004, and the associated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on May 5, 2004. Raymond timely appealed, asserting six assignments of error for review. II. A. First Assignment of Error \\The trial court erred when it failed to include appellant's spousal support payments as income to appellee and failed to deduct said payments from the income of appellant for the purpose of calculating appellee's child support"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba815051-fcef-4546-9ad1-552701a45c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526","title":"CourtListener opinion 3724526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3724526 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3724526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba815051-fcef-4546-9ad1-552701a45c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526","title":"CourtListener opinion 3724526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba815051-fcef-4546-9ad1-552701a45c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526","title":"CourtListener opinion 3724526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba815051-fcef-4546-9ad1-552701a45c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526","title":"CourtListener opinion 3724526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunz"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba815051-fcef-4546-9ad1-552701a45c74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3724526-3724526","title":"CourtListener opinion 3724526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"864692dc-f43b-47f9-947c-e5901b8792cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659","title":"CourtListener opinion 3725659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3725659 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3725659 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"864692dc-f43b-47f9-947c-e5901b8792cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659","title":"CourtListener opinion 3725659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"864692dc-f43b-47f9-947c-e5901b8792cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659","title":"CourtListener opinion 3725659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, approving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \\* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be dee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"864692dc-f43b-47f9-947c-e5901b8792cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659","title":"CourtListener opinion 3725659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \\* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be deemed to be a qualifying order in regard to the [appellant] Robert J. Huckle's pension. This Court specifically reserves the jurisdiction and right to enter any further orders that may be necessary from time to time in the future in o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"864692dc-f43b-47f9-947c-e5901b8792cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3725659-3725659","title":"CourtListener opinion 3725659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, approving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \\* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be dee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3727525 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3727525 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would not be entitled to any portion of appellant's pension or 401(k) accounts. Following dismissal o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 182; 1} On February 28, 1997, appellee, Cynthia Calloway, filed a complaint for divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appell"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ebruary 28, 1997, appellee, Cynthia Calloway, filed a complaint for divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48b9d566-abf7-4fd9-86ec-71db9aaacdbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3727525-3727525","title":"CourtListener opinion 3727525","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would not be entitled to any portion of appellant's pension or 401(k) accounts. Following dismissal o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3728942 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3728942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mark Gibbs is the surviving spouse of, and executor of the estate of, Rhonda Gibbs (formerly known as Rhonda Stanley). He appeals from an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filing of an amended QDRO, because he claims it violates the terms of the divorce decree. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err by permitting theiling of an amended QDRO. First, the amendment was ordered by an agreed order signed by attorneys for both parties. Second, the amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iled in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filing of an amended QDRO, because he claims it violates the terms of the divorce decree. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err by permitting theiling of an amended QDRO. First, the amendment was ordered by an agreed order signed by attorneys for both pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86d21b27-ea6a-46a3-80e4-25c146d24673","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3728942-3728942","title":"CourtListener opinion 3728942","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mark Gibbs is the surviving spouse of, and executor of the estate of, Rhonda Gibbs (formerly known as Rhonda Stanley). He appeals from an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea956e8e-8d46-4961-ba57-4899173ae1b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533","title":"CourtListener opinion 3729533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3729533 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3729533 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea956e8e-8d46-4961-ba57-4899173ae1b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533","title":"CourtListener opinion 3729533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea956e8e-8d46-4961-ba57-4899173ae1b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533","title":"CourtListener opinion 3729533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dra made from his deferred funds, thereby rendering that division unequal and leaving the parties' financial affairs entangled. In order to equalize the division of marital property, the trial court ordered Lawrence to transfer $201,417.79 to Sandra by way of qualified domestic relations order, or any other necessary method, from either his Prudential IRA account or his GROB profit sharing account. The court, in its judgment entry, then stated that \\[Lawrence] shall be responsible for one-half of any taxes and/or early withdrawal penalties as a result of this equalization.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea956e8e-8d46-4961-ba57-4899173ae1b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3729533-3729533","title":"CourtListener opinion 3729533","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rom his deferred funds, thereby rendering that division unequal and leaving the parties' financial affairs entangled. In order to equalize the division of marital property, the trial court ordered Lawrence to transfer $201,417.79 to Sandra by way of qualified domestic relations order, or any other necessary method, from either his Prudential IRA account or his GROB profit sharing account. The court, in its judgment entry, then stated that \\[Lawrence] shall be responsible for one-half of any taxes and/or early withdrawal penalties as a result of this equalization.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"147e3588-657d-4b83-bff7-6ce651df72c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689","title":"CourtListener opinion 3730689","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3730689 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3730689 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"147e3588-657d-4b83-bff7-6ce651df72c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689","title":"CourtListener opinion 3730689","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"147e3588-657d-4b83-bff7-6ce651df72c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689","title":"CourtListener opinion 3730689","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t earning potential, the trial court imputed income based on their substantial assets. See R.C. 3119.01 (C)(11)(b); former R.C. 3113.215 . {¶ 6} Both parties filed a notice of appeal from that order. Because the trial court's order had indicated that a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\") would be forthcoming and no QDRO had been filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"147e3588-657d-4b83-bff7-6ce651df72c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3730689-3730689","title":"CourtListener opinion 3730689","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: potential, the trial court imputed income based on their substantial assets. See R.C. 3119.01 (C)(11)(b); former R.C. 3113.215 . {¶ 6} Both parties filed a notice of appeal from that order. Because the trial court's order had indicated that a qualified domestic relations order (\\QDRO\\\") would be forthcoming and no QDRO had been filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c529c9f-fa41-4b9f-a4ec-06e3eb16d2f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3733576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3733576 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3733576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c529c9f-fa41-4b9f-a4ec-06e3eb16d2f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3733576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c529c9f-fa41-4b9f-a4ec-06e3eb16d2f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3733576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Makar appeals the decision of the trial court which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c529c9f-fa41-4b9f-a4ec-06e3eb16d2f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3733576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Makar appeals the decision of the trial court which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The magistrate and the trial court held that the prior entry awarded wife 40 percent of the entire a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c529c9f-fa41-4b9f-a4ec-06e3eb16d2f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3733576-3733576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3733576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: urt which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The magistrate and the trial court held that the prior entry awarded wife 40 percent of the entire amount received by husband in the future even though nearly fourteen out of the thirty years of pension service occurred post-divorce. For the following re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3735597 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3735597 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2 a month from the pension plan. In February 1999, the monthly distribution decreased to $378.52 each. This decrease was the result of appellant reaching age 62 and thus becoming eligible to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits. 1 These early retirement benefits would total approximately $800 per month. Rather than apply for these benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mes eligible for governmental- or employer-sponsored health care. This spousal support provision contained no reservation of jurisdiction, and appellee did not appeal the lack thereof. The decree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d94e1fcc-6ebd-4951-9bdc-7db6ca9f817f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3735597-3735597","title":"CourtListener opinion 3735597","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6969805-b959-4536-b7f5-68ff70494514","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3740576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3740576 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3740576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6969805-b959-4536-b7f5-68ff70494514","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3740576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6969805-b959-4536-b7f5-68ff70494514","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3740576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rial court modified the magistrate's decision in a judgment entry dated May 24, 2000. These modifications are incorporated in the final judgment entry, filed September 15, 2000. It awarded appellee half of appellant's pension fund and SASP fund, to be held in QDRO, and awarded appellee $1000 per month spousal support, for an indefinite period. The court's judgment maintained an equal division of the marital property. Appellant raises the following assignments of error: \\[1.] The trial court abused its discretion in its division of the property."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6969805-b959-4536-b7f5-68ff70494514","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3740576-3740576","title":"CourtListener opinion 3740576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: worked for a large portion of the marriage, made approximately $16,000 per year. The case was first tried before the magistrate. Appellant presented the magistrate with a plan for the division of the marital property whereby appellant would keep his entire pension and employer SASP account, and appellee would receive the marital home and other property to create an equal division. The magistrate adopted appellant's plan and included it in his decision. The magistrate also recommended that appellant pay appellee $500 per month for twenty-four months as spousal support. Appellee filed her objections to the magistrate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb2a6b55-f316-4b2c-8e1b-8f4fdf0407ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3744325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3744325 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3744325 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb2a6b55-f316-4b2c-8e1b-8f4fdf0407ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3744325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb2a6b55-f316-4b2c-8e1b-8f4fdf0407ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3744325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either party's retirement and allowed for future orders should the law change making the pension benefits subject to a QDRO or an equivalent order. After the parties divorced but before Appellee retired, legislation went into effect allowing a Division of Property Order (\\DOPO\\\") for public pension plans."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb2a6b55-f316-4b2c-8e1b-8f4fdf0407ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3744325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , Appellee filed for a divorce from Appellant. The parties negotiated a divorce settlement, which the trial court incorporated into the Decree of Divorce. {¶ 3} At the time of the divorce, both Appellant and Appellee were participating in State of Ohio pension plans. The February 26, 1999 Decree of Divorce contained specific agreed upon provisions which divided their individual pensions in half by coverture fracture and designated the ex-spouse as the surviving spouse in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb2a6b55-f316-4b2c-8e1b-8f4fdf0407ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3744325-3744325","title":"CourtListener opinion 3744325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: pellant and Appellee were participating in State of Ohio pension plans. The February 26, 1999 Decree of Divorce contained specific agreed upon provisions which divided their individual pensions in half by coverture fracture and designated the ex-spouse as the surviving spouse in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either party's retirement and allowed for future orders should the law change making the pension benefits subject to a QDRO or an equivalent order. After the parties divorced but before Appellee retired, legislation we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66c0ac30-afa3-4cc6-9f73-e437b1bcdeb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161","title":"CourtListener opinion 3754161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3754161 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3754161 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66c0ac30-afa3-4cc6-9f73-e437b1bcdeb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161","title":"CourtListener opinion 3754161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"66c0ac30-afa3-4cc6-9f73-e437b1bcdeb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3754161-3754161","title":"CourtListener opinion 3754161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: OPINION This is an accelerated calendar appeal submitted on the briefs of the parties from the judgment entry of divorce issued by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in which the trial court granted appellant, Diane Elizabeth Young, and appellee, James Stoner Young, a divorce. Appellant and appellee were married on January 15, 1966. The parties had two children born as issue of their marriage, both of whom are now emancipated. After thirty-four years of marriage, appellant filed a complaint for divorce on January 28, 2000. Subsequently, appellee filed an answer to the complaint and a countercomplaint for divorce. During the proceedings, appellee was or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3755662 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3755662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Ord"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: SION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b8c181b-e5f9-42f3-badb-e71b46ab01b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755662-3755662","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: e pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse benefits. After he retired in 2007, Luis moved for relief from that provision of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Rule 60(B)(5) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an order that Juanita is not entitled to any surviving spouse benefits. The trial court granted Luis's motion and entered an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order under"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a6eac33-309a-4f8c-84fd-ec8eba22ab6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3755962 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3755962 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a6eac33-309a-4f8c-84fd-ec8eba22ab6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a6eac33-309a-4f8c-84fd-ec8eba22ab6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ies' mortgage and other debts, was a gift and not a loan. The court found that appellant had pensions from his employment with Bell Telephone for twenty-nine years and the Army National Guard for approximately thirty years. Appellee was awarded, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\")"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a6eac33-309a-4f8c-84fd-ec8eba22ab6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: age and other debts, was a gift and not a loan. The court found that appellant had pensions from his employment with Bell Telephone for twenty-nine years and the Army National Guard for approximately thirty years. Appellee was awarded, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\\QDRO\\\")"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a6eac33-309a-4f8c-84fd-ec8eba22ab6a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3755962-3755962","title":"CourtListener opinion 3755962","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: dules filed with the court and the market value of the parties' two vehicles. The parties' house, determined to be marital property, was sold for $115,000 during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, netting $76,306.61. A hearing was conducted to determine property division issues, debt payment, spousal support, and the alleged dissipation of marital assets. The final hearings were conducted in May 1997 with both post-trial briefs filed by June 11, 1997. The record shows that the divorce was acrimonious with many disputes over the marital household property. Testimony and evidence were presented that appellant threatened app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"260789a7-10a7-4e0f-bf2a-9e4b0f6ac270","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748","title":"CourtListener opinion 3758748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3758748 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3758748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"260789a7-10a7-4e0f-bf2a-9e4b0f6ac270","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748","title":"CourtListener opinion 3758748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"260789a7-10a7-4e0f-bf2a-9e4b0f6ac270","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3758748-3758748","title":"CourtListener opinion 3758748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ve April 23, 1997. A trial was held on January 28, 1998, May 26, 1998, and July 31, 1998. At the time of trial, the real estate was worth $83,000.00. On March 24, 1999, the trial court granted the divorce, and on March 17, 2003, the trial court issued a final QDRO. 1 It is from the divorce decree that Appellant now appeals."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53a140c8-f70d-4936-980a-29b806843555","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034","title":"CourtListener opinion 3764034","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3764034 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3764034 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53a140c8-f70d-4936-980a-29b806843555","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034","title":"CourtListener opinion 3764034","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53a140c8-f70d-4936-980a-29b806843555","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034","title":"CourtListener opinion 3764034","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nsion, of which defendant-appellee was awarded half through stipulation. For the following reasons, the trial court's decision is reversed, the cash award is vacated, and this case is remanded with instructions that the trial court see to the amendment of the QDRO in order that it utilizes a modified coverture formula. STATEMENT OF THE CASE {¶ 2} Janet Presby began working for the United States Postal Authority in October 1983. She married Mark Presby in October 1989. Ms. Presby filed for divorce in January 2003. The parties stipulated that Ms. Presby would be the residential parent and that child support for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53a140c8-f70d-4936-980a-29b806843555","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034","title":"CourtListener opinion 3764034","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, ordering her to pay defendant-appellee Mark Presby $9,089.16 for half of her accumulated sick leave where such sick leave can never be cashed out but rather can later be used to increase the years of service on her pension, of which defendant-appellee was awarded half through stipulation. For the following reasons, the trial court's decision is reversed, the cash award is vacated, and this case is remanded with instructions that the trial court see to the amendment of the QDRO in order that it utilizes a modified coverture formula. STATEMENT OF THE CASE {¶ 2} Janet Pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53a140c8-f70d-4936-980a-29b806843555","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3764034-3764034","title":"CourtListener opinion 3764034","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: pport for Ms. Presby would be offset by spousal support for Mr. Presby for eighteen months, after which Ms. Presby could file a motion for court-ordered child support. The parties stipulated to the division of property. For instance, Ms. Presby's pension, the marital portion of which was estimated to be worth over $97,000, was to be divided by a standard coverture fraction at the time of retirement in approximately ten years. After the stipulations, the only issues that remained for trial concerned Ms. Presby's accumulated sick and vacation leave. {¶ 3} Regarding vacation leave, testimony established that Ms. Presby carr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb3b3b00-8351-4058-901f-18c8f6d34a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305","title":"CourtListener opinion 3765305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3765305 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3765305 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb3b3b00-8351-4058-901f-18c8f6d34a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305","title":"CourtListener opinion 3765305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb3b3b00-8351-4058-901f-18c8f6d34a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305","title":"CourtListener opinion 3765305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \\modified downward.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb3b3b00-8351-4058-901f-18c8f6d34a23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3765305-3765305","title":"CourtListener opinion 3765305","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nt resulting reduction in income. On December 27, 1999, Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \\modified downward.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3767769 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3767769 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), assigning one-half the value of the plan to Mr. Paluch. However, in journalizing the QDRO, the court erroneously identified the TSP as her FERS pension. Due to this misidentification, the TSP administrator rejected Mr. Paluch's claim. The court responded immediately, intending to remedy the mislabeling and effectuate the divorce decree. An amended Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: idual retirement savings plans administered by the parties' respective employers: Mr. Paluch's 401k plan with McKesson Corporation and Ms. Baker's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) with the United States Postal Service (USPS). While each party also had an independent pension plan, these pensions were not deemed to be marital property and were not to be divided: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s. Baker (f.k.a. Mrs. Paluch) had been married, but were divorced on December 22, 1994. The court ordered an equal division of marital property, which included individual retirement savings plans administered by the parties' respective employers: Mr. Paluch's 401k plan with McKesson Corporation and Ms. Baker's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) with the United States Postal Service (USPS). While each party also had an independent pension plan, these pensions were not deemed to be marital property and were not to be divided: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FER"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"051854e2-9281-4c91-a5f7-0ad88d3033d8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3767769-3767769","title":"CourtListener opinion 3767769","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: h's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), assigning one-half the value of the plan to Mr. Paluch. However, in journalizing the QDRO, the court erroneously identified the TSP as her FERS pension. Due to this misidentification, the TSP administrator rejected Mr. Paluch's claim. The court responded immediately, intending to remedy the mislabeling and effectuate the divorce decree. An amended Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97d15f94-54cc-44a8-978a-869ee4d61014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815","title":"CourtListener opinion 3771815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3771815 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3771815 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97d15f94-54cc-44a8-978a-869ee4d61014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815","title":"CourtListener opinion 3771815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97d15f94-54cc-44a8-978a-869ee4d61014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815","title":"CourtListener opinion 3771815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: share of twenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein and incorporated into this Judgment Entry and made a part hereof. Prior to the entry being journalized, Plaintiff initialed an interlineation that appeared in the above paragraph. The interlineation was inserted after the word `Fund' and stated \\as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97d15f94-54cc-44a8-978a-869ee4d61014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815","title":"CourtListener opinion 3771815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The court entered a divorce decree, which stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendant shall receive as and for a division of marital assets, a one-half share of twenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97d15f94-54cc-44a8-978a-869ee4d61014","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3771815-3771815","title":"CourtListener opinion 3771815","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: wenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein and incorporated into this Judgment Entry and made a part hereof. Prior to the entry being journalized, Plaintiff initialed an interlineation that appeared in the above paragraph. The interlineation was inserted after the word `Fund' and stated \\as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3773143 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3773143 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f. Therefore, this Court may accept Nathan's statement of the facts and issues as correct. See App.R. 18(C). {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the division of Nathan's interest in a \\U.S. Steel Corporation Plan for Non-Union Employee Pension Benefits (Rev. 1998).\\\" Approximately one month later"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47a7bca9-e1e2-491d-9f48-1d6c7ea5d2c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3773143-3773143","title":"CourtListener opinion 3773143","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ; 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bdba1a0-7bb2-4501-b740-76b6cc7da163","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863","title":"CourtListener opinion 3776863","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3776863 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3776863 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bdba1a0-7bb2-4501-b740-76b6cc7da163","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863","title":"CourtListener opinion 3776863","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bdba1a0-7bb2-4501-b740-76b6cc7da163","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863","title":"CourtListener opinion 3776863","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ef under Civ.R. 60(B), and did not allege sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the divorce decree. Thus, we reverse the trial court's decision to the extent that it modified that decree. However, the trial court may still order a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which does not conflict with the divorce decree. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the trial court so it may issue a QDRO in accordance with the divorce decree. {¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bdba1a0-7bb2-4501-b740-76b6cc7da163","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863","title":"CourtListener opinion 3776863","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in the divorce decree. One of the provisions in the decree dealt with Herbert's pension and provided as follows: {¶ 3} \\12. That Defendant's present pension plan with G.M.A.D. will pay the sum of $324.00 per month when Defendant reaches the age of retirement and that Defendant will pay to Plaintiff the sum of $162.00 per month upon receipt of said retirement.\\\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bdba1a0-7bb2-4501-b740-76b6cc7da163","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3776863-3776863","title":"CourtListener opinion 3776863","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iv.R. 60(B), and did not allege sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the divorce decree. Thus, we reverse the trial court's decision to the extent that it modified that decree. However, the trial court may still order a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which does not conflict with the divorce decree. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the trial court so it may issue a QDRO in accordance with the divorce decree. {¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a11eb427-8998-4419-90fd-180bc2da7ac8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343","title":"CourtListener opinion 3778343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3778343 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3778343 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a11eb427-8998-4419-90fd-180bc2da7ac8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343","title":"CourtListener opinion 3778343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a11eb427-8998-4419-90fd-180bc2da7ac8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3778343-3778343","title":"CourtListener opinion 3778343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: OPINION Petitioner-appellant Laura Lyles appeals from the dismissal of her petition to register a foreign domestic relations order, and the denial of her subsequent motion to enforce and modify that order. We conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. I Laura Lyles and Kent Lyles are the parents of Kody Lee Lyles, whose date of birth is January 4, 1993. The parties were m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a32ea6b-33a8-4f60-820a-96c1e312d4d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213","title":"CourtListener opinion 3779213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 3779213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3779213 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a32ea6b-33a8-4f60-820a-96c1e312d4d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213","title":"CourtListener opinion 3779213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a32ea6b-33a8-4f60-820a-96c1e312d4d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213","title":"CourtListener opinion 3779213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eal, we affirm. The parties were divorced on July 24, 1996, following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a32ea6b-33a8-4f60-820a-96c1e312d4d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213","title":"CourtListener opinion 3779213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at issue here; and his restricted stock award program, not at issue here."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a32ea6b-33a8-4f60-820a-96c1e312d4d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-3779213-3779213","title":"CourtListener opinion 3779213","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The parties were divorced on July 24, 1996, following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at issue here; and his restricted stock"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 38070 Extracted reporter citation: 379 F.3d 177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 38070 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: payable di- rectly to her, could not proceed with her lawsuit under § 502(a)(2). Russell, 473 U.S. at 134. Accordingly, the majority's holding goes far beyond the holding of Russell.4 In Matassarin, the plaintiff Patricia Matassarin was, by virtue of a qualified domestic relations order (the \"QDRO\") entered into as part of her divorce, a beneficiary in an employee stock owner- ship plan (the \"ESOP\") offered by Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. Matassarin, 174 F.3d at 556. Matassarin's account, like that of approximately sixty-seven other plan participants (most were terminated employees), was a segregated account. Id. at 556-57. In May"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10, AS MEMBERS OF THE PENSION ASSET ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; JOHN DOES, 11-20, AS MEMBERS OF THE PENSION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; TOWERS PERRIN"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: they Michael Milofsky and Robert Walsh would not be permitted to have access to their brought a class action under the Employee accounts. Allegedly, the transfer of the ac- Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 counts did not go smoothly, with the account (\"ERISA\") against American Airlines, Inc. transfers occurring weeks, and in some cases, (\"American Airlines\") and Towers Perrin, months after the time written in the notices. alleging breach of fiduciary duty with regard to a transfer of their pension plans from their The plaintiffs sued under ERISA § 502- former employer when it was acquired by the (a)(2), 29 U.S."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5601725f-3b87-4f14-b465-d070097c2d47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-38070-38070","title":"CourtListener opinion 38070","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"379 F.3d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . Fulbruge III In the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _______________ m 03-11087 _______________ MICHAEL MILOFSKY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; ROBERT WALSH, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS AMERICAN AIRLINES"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4013741 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 24 N.E.3d 1007. Docket: 42A01-1508-DR-1255 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4013741 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ith the last known valuations as follows: TIAA and CREF as of 12-31-02 at $240,703.32; Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund as of 03- 31-03 at $45,085.86. These accounts shall be equally divided between the parties with [Richard's] attorney preparing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")]. Appellant's Appendix at 26. It is undisputed that the $45,085.86 value stated for the TERF account reflected only the value of Richard's annuity savings account and not the value of his pension benefit. [4] After the parties signed and submitted the Settlement Agreement (but before the trial court signed it on July 1, 2003), Richard's c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 55| July 7, 2016 Page 1 of 20 Case Summary and Issues [1] Richard and Ellyn Ray's twenty-nine-year marriage was dissolved in July 2003. Provisions were made in the parties' Settlement Agreement and in two subsequent court orders for division of Richard's retirement accounts due to his employment at Vincennes University. After Richard retired from Vincennes University in 2014, Ellyn filed with the trial court a Motion to Correct Erroneous Court Order and Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreement. The trial court granted the motion and crafted a remedy requiring Richard to pay certain sums to Ellyn. Richard now appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tlement Agreement. The trial court granted the motion and crafted a remedy requiring Richard to pay certain sums to Ellyn. Richard now appeals, raising several issues which we consolidate and restate as: 1) whether the trial court erred in valuing his pension benefit; and 2) whether the trial court erred in its distribution of those accounts. Concluding the trial court did not err in valuing the accounts, but used an incorrect coverture fraction to determine the appropriate amount of distribution to Ellyn, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Facts and Procedural History [2] Richard and Elly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b08d39bc-7803-41a2-a6c8-e5e0f567748d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4013741-4013741","title":"CourtListener opinion 4013741","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42A01-1508-DR-1255 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"24 N.E.3d 1007","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ces receiving his monthly payments from [TERF] Defined Benefit Pension Annuity, he shall, on receipt of his monthly payment, immediately pay over to [Ellyn] a sum equal to one-half (1/2) of the monthly payments received; B. That with reference to [TERF] Defined Contribution Benefit Pension Fund, at such time as [Richard] is ordered to receive his Fund balance, he shall, immediately upon receipt of same, pay over to [Ellyn] a sum equal to one- half (1/2) of the then lump sum received. 2. That each party shall be responsible for paying the taxes on the sums which they, themselves, receive for their own use. 3. This Cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4017078 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4017078 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 20-107.3(K)(4), an equitable distribution order \"intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.\" See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1997). Turner v. Turner, 47 Va. App. 76, 80, 622 S.E.2d 263, 265-66 (2005) (alteration in original). \"Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) does not, however, allow a court to modify a final divorce decree simply"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Julia L. McAfee (Carl E. McAfee, PC, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations appeal, Francene K. Meade challenges a decision from the Circuit Court of Wise County clarifying her interest in the disability retirement benefits received by her ex-husband, Lenville Jessie Sowards. Meade contends that the circuit court erred by calculating her marital share of Sowards's retirement benefits based on the assumption that Sowards retired at the minimum retirement age allowed by his employer rather than the actual date of his retirement. By basing its calculation on Sowards's mi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Rule 1:1; see also Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 256, 481 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1997). Thereafter, the court's power to modify such orders is governed by statute. Under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), an equitable distribution order \"intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.\" See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a13b5983-d103-47b9-b404-b98e89cd690c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4017078-4017078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4017078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: K)(4), an equitable distribution order \"intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.\" See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1997). Turner v. Turner, 47 Va. App. 76, 80, 622 S.E.2d 263, 265-66 (2005) (alteration in original). \"Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) does not, however, allow a court to modify a final divorce decree simply"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4020692 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020692 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. BACKGROUND On appeal, we review the evidence in the favor of husband, the prevailing party below. Niblett v. Niblett, 65 Va. App. 616, 622, 779 S.E.2d 839, 842 (2015).2 So viewed, the evidence demonstrates that the parties were married on October 27, 1997. Two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: liabilities of the parties. The court noted that the marital home constituted their largest debt and least liquid asset. Despite finding \"no significant evidence on th[e] factor,\" the court considered the tax implications of selling the house, dividing the retirement plans, and ordering child support. Although some evidence was presented regarding dissipation of marital assets, the court found that neither party was able to show any waste by the other. With respect to any other factors, the court commented, \"[T]here's nothing that the court finds significant to put into that slot at this time.\" After relaying his findin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e40b99e-3863-4257-9624-a2799911f1c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020692-4020692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020692","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t wife challenges provisions of the parties' final decree of divorce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4020693 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020693 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. BACKGROUND On appeal, we review the evidence in the favor of husband, the prevailing party below. Niblett v. Niblett, 65 Va. App. 616, 622, 779 S.E.2d 839, 842 (2015).2 So viewed, the evidence demonstrates that the parties were married on October 27, 1997. Two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: liabilities of the parties. The court noted that the marital home constituted their largest debt and least liquid asset. Despite finding \"no significant evidence on th[e] factor,\" the court considered the tax implications of selling the house, dividing the retirement plans, and ordering child support. Although some evidence was presented regarding dissipation of marital assets, the court found that neither party was able to show any waste by the other. With respect to any other factors, the court commented, \"[T]here's nothing that the court finds significant to put into that slot at this time.\" After relaying his findin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"224f96ee-faf4-4964-837a-2bbc033efd5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020693-4020693","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020693","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t wife challenges provisions of the parties' final decree of divorce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4020906 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore. Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.2d 30. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020906 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t value of the plan at the time of the trial was $0, and it ordered, instead, that Wife shall receive a portion of the pension benefits once Husband began receiving them. The court noted that LAGERS is exempt from the terms of ERISA and cannot be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and thus it ordered that \"THusband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $687.00 (half of the accrued marital benefit of $1,374.00 per month) less applicable income taxes per month beginning on the first day of the first month that [Husband] both becomes eligible to receive such benefits and does, in fact, receive such benefits from LAGERS.\" This appeal f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 0 per month) and Husband received a gross annual salary of $51,792 ($4,316 per month), Husband had worked for the City for twenty-seven years, during which he had participated in a defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan {LAGERS). The trial court divided the parties' marital assets and debts as follows: Wite Husband Knaup Floral, valued at $0 LAGERS pension, valued at $0 real estate associated with Knaup Floral, valued at $410,000, less $52,000 owed ($358,000 total value) Ford Transit van titled to Knaup Floral, valued at $6,500 The marital residence located at 13"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ved a gross annual salary from Knaup Floral of $69,000 ($5,850 per month) and Husband received a gross annual salary of $51,792 ($4,316 per month), Husband had worked for the City for twenty-seven years, during which he had participated in a defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan {LAGERS). The trial court divided the parties' marital assets and debts as follows: Wite Husband Knaup Floral, valued at $0 LAGERS pension, valued at $0 real estate associated with Knaup Floral, valued at $410,000, less $52,000 owed ($358,000 total value) Ford Transit van title"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3ba2797-fe46-4140-833f-1e6e09f85c11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4020906-4020906","title":"CourtListener opinion 4020906","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.2d 30","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: t, however, determined the current value of the plan at the time of the trial was $0, and it ordered, instead, that Wife shall receive a portion of the pension benefits once Husband began receiving them. The court noted that LAGERS is exempt from the terms of ERISA and cannot be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and thus it ordered that \"THusband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $687.00 (half of the accrued marital benefit of $1,374.00 per month) less applicable income taxes per month beginning on the first day of the first month that [Husband] both becomes eligible to receive such benefits and do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4021003 Extracted reporter citation: 509 F.3d 173. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4021003 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 15-1914 ____________ MARVA JANE RICHARDSON-ROY, Appellant, v. ABIGAIL JOHNSON, President; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS; QDRO ADMINISTRATION GROUP, a fiduciary agent for General Motors Corporation; MARY T. BARRA, CEO; MELISSA CHOUINARD; DOE INDIVIDUALS; GENERAL MOTORS LLC f/k/a GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION __________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civ. No. 1-14-cv-00371) District Judge: Honorable R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: llow, we will affirm. On March 10, 1994, Richardson-Roy and her husband Howard divorced after 33 years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, Howard was employed by General Motors Corporation (\"GM\"). Howard retired four years later, and elected to begin pension benefits, effective August 1, 1998, under the GM Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan (\"the Plan\"), with survivor spouse coverage for his then-wife, Cheryl L. Richardson. Howard died on January 4, 2010. Cheryl's surviving spouse benefits began the following month. On March 16, 2010, two months after Howard died, Richardson-Roy obtained a \"Qualified Dom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: paid. On March 24, 2014, almost four years after Fidelity's original decision and more than one year after the last correspondence from Fidelity, Richardson-Roy filed a pro se civil action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware. GM moved for summary judgment, submitting the Plan and the QDRO as 3 exhibits to the motion, and arguing that Richardson-Roy's benefits claim was time-barred and meritless, and that ERISA preempts claims for non-benefit remedies.2 Richardson- Roy submitted w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fad84e2-9ce8-407f-9bfe-44a252bc69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4021003-4021003","title":"CourtListener opinion 4021003","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"509 F.3d 173","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: strict Court held in the alternative that summary judgment was warranted because there was no merit to Richardson-Roy's ERISA claim. We agree. A QDRO is an order that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternative payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan…. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). The \"alternate payee\" can be a \"spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a 3 The statute provides: No action for recovery upon a cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4023877 Extracted reporter citation: 635 N.E.2d 308. Docket: 26921 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4023877 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t, that Cynthia is entitled to one-half of James's Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio (\"PERS\") account and Ohio Deferred Compensation Benefit which accrued to James for the period of February 3, 1995 through October 21, 1998. It also provided for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or comparable court order, i.e., a Division of Property Order (\"DOPO\"), to be issued. The decree further indicated that the trial court would retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate the division of the PERS account and Deferred Compensation Benefit. {¶ 3} After the divorce decree was entered, a DOPO was filed on May 22, 2002, which provided the f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: payment is designated, [Cynthia] shall receive payment from the first benefit payment or lump sum payment for which [James] is eligible to apply and receive. Please check ALL APPLICABLE -3- BENEFIT(S) OR LUMP SUM PAYMENT(S): □ Age and service monthly retirement benefit □ Disability monthly retirement benefit □ Account refund □ Additional money purchase monthly annuity or lump sum refund □ Reemployed retiree money purchase monthly annuity (when monthly payment exceeds $25.00) or lump sum refund □ Defined contribution plan benefit (STRS only) Division of Property Order (May 22, 2002), Montgomery County Domestic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.\" Id. \"A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.\" Id. {¶ 11} A DOPO \"merely implement[s] a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to a final divorce entry.\" Rice v. Rice, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95221, 2011-Ohio-1366, ¶ 7, citing Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. In turn, \"[t]he entry of divorce divides the property; the [DOPO] ‘is merely -6- a tool used to execute the divorce decree.' \" Id., quoting Wilson at ¶ 19."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67a05e88-6ba6-4e6c-b888-997e859694c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4023877-4023877","title":"CourtListener opinion 4023877","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"26921 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"635 N.E.2d 308","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tirement benefit □ Disability monthly retirement benefit □ Account refund □ Additional money purchase monthly annuity or lump sum refund □ Reemployed retiree money purchase monthly annuity (when monthly payment exceeds $25.00) or lump sum refund □ Defined contribution plan benefit (STRS only) Division of Property Order (May 22, 2002), Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court Case No. 2000-DR-01903, Docket No. 36, ¶ II(A). None of the boxes were marked on the DOPO that was filed, including the box titled \"Disability monthly retirement benefit.\" {¶ 4} In 2013, although not yet eligible for age and service based reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40d97db1-13b0-4c1d-a166-4b85707655b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 A.3d 349","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4025078 Extracted case name: W.A.M. v. S.P.C. Extracted reporter citation: 95 A.3d 349. Docket: 252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4025078 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40d97db1-13b0-4c1d-a166-4b85707655b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 A.3d 349","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40d97db1-13b0-4c1d-a166-4b85707655b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 A.3d 349","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y support obligation of $572.00. In the agreed-upon interim order [dated] March 21, 2005, arrearages were set at $0.00. In any event, [Father's] basic support obligation remained at $572.00. [Father] retired from ATI in 2008, after which the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") were entered by the Court to ensure that [Father's] monthly support obligation would be paid from his ATI pension. The QDROs were entered on December 4, 2008 and February 2, 2009. [Father's] basic monthly support obligation did not change. [Mother] filed a petition to modify the support obligation on February 4, 2010. In her petition, [Mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40d97db1-13b0-4c1d-a166-4b85707655b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 A.3d 349","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: support obligation remained at $572.00. [Father] retired from ATI in 2008, after which the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") were entered by the Court to ensure that [Father's] monthly support obligation would be paid from his ATI pension. The QDROs were entered on December 4, 2008 and February 2, 2009. [Father's] basic monthly support obligation did not change. [Mother] filed a petition to modify the support obligation on February 4, 2010. In her petition, [Mother] states that the case had not been reviewed in more than three years and that she was then homeschooling the Child, who h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"40d97db1-13b0-4c1d-a166-4b85707655b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025078-4025078","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025078","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 A.3d 349","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: obligation of $572.00. In the agreed-upon interim order [dated] March 21, 2005, arrearages were set at $0.00. In any event, [Father's] basic support obligation remained at $572.00. [Father] retired from ATI in 2008, after which the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") were entered by the Court to ensure that [Father's] monthly support obligation would be paid from his ATI pension. The QDROs were entered on December 4, 2008 and February 2, 2009. [Father's] basic monthly support obligation did not change. [Mother] filed a petition to modify the support obligation on February 4, 2010. In her petition, [Mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4025883 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELISSA A. GANSEN BEAUCHAMP AND CORY J. BEAUCHAMP Upon the Petition of MELISSA A. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 15-0107. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4025883 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y equal division of assets which fully factors in all of the claims and arguments made by each party. The court then found: [T]hose claims substantially offset each other and that a fair and equitable division of property can be accomplished by using a qualified domestic relations order to set off an appropriate amount of Missy's retirement account to Cory as set forth below and by distributing the net proceeds from the sale of the marital home as set forth below, without any further adjustment regarding personal property. The district court ordered the parties to sell the house and equally divide the proceeds. The court also held C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nge the custody or child support provisions of the decree. In deciding how to distribute the marital property, the district court discussed the parties' division of personal belongings and vehicles, before setting out the following information: Cory has retirement accounts with a value of approximately $145,000. Missy has a 401K with her employer with a balance of about $210,000 plus a cash balance plan with a balance of almost 4 $78,000. As discussed elsewhere, Missy claims a premarital contribution to her retirement plan of over $8000. Cory asserts that he brought assets into the marriage and that the parties jointl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: half of the installation of the new furnace and air conditioner. The district court next discussed division of the parties' other major assets, their pensions and Missy's life insurance policy: Since Missy earns substantially more money than Cory, her pension plan is much larger . . . . Missy asserts that the retirement accounts should not be divided equally because she should be granted credit for the portion attributed to her premarital balance . . . . The court FINDS that it is not fair and equitable to set off to Missy the portion of her pension attributed to her premarital contributions, without consid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a83315b-17f1-42b4-be9b-30d4e427a382","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4025883-4025883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4025883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-0107","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): how to distribute the marital property, the district court discussed the parties' division of personal belongings and vehicles, before setting out the following information: Cory has retirement accounts with a value of approximately $145,000. Missy has a 401K with her employer with a balance of about $210,000 plus a cash balance plan with a balance of almost 4 $78,000. As discussed elsewhere, Missy claims a premarital contribution to her retirement plan of over $8000. Cory asserts that he brought assets into the marriage and that the parties jointly paid off Missy's student loan debt. It is difficult, if"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4026742 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 345. Docket: of the final judgment. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4026742 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . The October 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"the Clarification Order\"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his opening brief. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. (2) The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e of discovery (\"the Property Division Order\"). The October 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"the Clarification Order\"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his open"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ent on the merits of any request for ancillary relief is not final until an outstanding related application for an award of attorney's fees has been decided.\"). 3 Pinkert v. Wion, 431 A.2d 1269, 1270 (Del. 1981). 4 The Cooper formula is a method of dividing pension benefits, which was approved by this Court in Jerry L.C. v. Lucille H.C., 448 A.2d 223, 225-26 (Del. 1982). 5 In fact, in discussing the appropriate division of the parties' respective retirement and pension accounts, the Family Court twice indicated that only the pension accounts were subject to the Cooper formula. See Woods v. Woods, File No. CK08-03006,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9154aef0-6821-4f82-8163-78896bf4c127","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4026742-4026742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4026742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of the final judgment","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ber 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"the Clarification Order\"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his opening brief. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. (2) The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4027505 Docket: 208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4027505 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion, the court found that both parties had need of some retirement income. It rejected husband's request to divide the pension equally without limitation to the marital portion, and instead ordered that the marital portion of the pension be divided equally by QDRO. In considering its division of the pension, the court noted that wife has hopes to retire soon, but husband will need to retire someday, and has variable income from his solo law practice. The court acknowledged that husband's vocational skills and employability were greater than wife's, but concluded that all the other relevant factors pointed to an equal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 00. Wife has a credit union savings account of about $6,500, stock worth $500, and revolving credit card debt of $9,000. Husband had an IRA worth $986 and two kinds of stock worth $5047 and $282, respectively. He had credit card debt of $88,500.2 Wife had two retirement plans, a deferred compensation plan worth $21,370, and a state pension which, based on the testimony of wife's expert, the court found to have present value 1 Both parties were represented by counsel at trial. 2 In its specific findings, the trial court listed husband's credit card debt borne by husband totaling $88,500. In its conclusions, the court descri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 500, and revolving credit card debt of $9,000. Husband had an IRA worth $986 and two kinds of stock worth $5047 and $282, respectively. He had credit card debt of $88,500.2 Wife had two retirement plans, a deferred compensation plan worth $21,370, and a state pension which, based on the testimony of wife's expert, the court found to have present value 1 Both parties were represented by counsel at trial. 2 In its specific findings, the trial court listed husband's credit card debt borne by husband totaling $88,500. In its conclusions, the court describes husband's debt as exceeding $68,000. We use the more specific"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cc727a2-da01-4ba1-8b56-dd4b2397aeda","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4027505-4027505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4027505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , Washington Unit, v. } Family Division } } Edwin Hobson } DOCKET NO. 208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Wife appeals pro se from a final divorce judgment.1 She challenges the trial court's property division. Although we uphold nearly all of the trial court's findings and conclusions, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can address one outstanding issue. The trial court made the following findings of fact. The parties were married in 1984 and separated in 2009. Their children are grown. At the time of the trial, husband was sixty-five years old and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4028365 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 422 A.2d 271. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4028365 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tested proceeding on December 19, 2001. Both parties were represented by counsel. . . . ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's [B]orough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . .5 [That order] was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plaintiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ems by exceeding authority, deemed subject matter jurisdictional in nature, granted by federal statutes. See Cline v. Cline, 90 P.3d 147, 153–54 (Alaska 2004) (sustaining collateral attack on state court order that distributed more than 50 percent of military retirement benefits, in excess of federal statute that ‘‘established a limited grant of subject matter jurisdiction to state courts''); In re Marriage of Hulstrom, 342 Ill. App. 3d 262, 271–72, 794 N.E.2d 980 (2003) (property division subject to collateral attack under § 12 of Restatement [Second] of Judgments because, given federal preemption principles, it divided Social Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: oyd Cutsumpas, judge trial referee, denying a motion of the defendant, Donna M. Sousa, to vacate a prior judgment, rendered by the court, Resha, J., which ‘‘modified, by stipulation, a por- tion of the judgment of dissolution that ordered that the plaintiff's pension benefits be divided equally between the parties.''3 Sousa v. Sousa, 157 Conn. App. 587, 590, 116 A.3d 865 (2015). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly failed to consider aspects of the doctrine of finality of judgments on the basis of its conclusion that it was ‘‘entirely obvi- ous'' that, under General Statutes § 46b-81 (a) a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"047bd76b-7bd5-4809-8624-3a83f3b81f4c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028365-4028365","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"422 A.2d 271","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ceeding on December 19, 2001. Both parties were represented by counsel. . . . ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's [B]orough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . .5 [That order] was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plaintiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ef41b7b-704e-4fb5-ae67-e075b8704db3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028785","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"331605 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4028785 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 331605 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4028785 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ef41b7b-704e-4fb5-ae67-e075b8704db3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028785","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"331605 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ef41b7b-704e-4fb5-ae67-e075b8704db3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4028785-4028785","title":"CourtListener opinion 4028785","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"331605 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 694 NW2d 65 (2005), but instead dismiss this claim, an option included in our Supreme Court's order. We have determined that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this parenting time order and the appeal is properly dismissed. 8 Before 1994, most postjudgment domestic relations orders were appealable by right. The Staff Comment to the February 1994 amendment to MCR 7.203 indicates that the court rule change \"eliminates appeals of right as to certain types of judgments or orders. . . . In domestic relations cases, the only postjudgment orders that will be appealable by right are those involving the custody of minors.\" 9 An issue is moot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09c6d20a-d3d3-407c-9335-bbe6698aab6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4029252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4029252 Extracted reporter citation: 341 S.W.3d 360. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4029252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09c6d20a-d3d3-407c-9335-bbe6698aab6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4029252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09c6d20a-d3d3-407c-9335-bbe6698aab6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4029252-4029252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4029252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"341 S.W.3d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a legal assistant, Mitan Sudatu, at Busby's law firm office three days after relator had retained the firm. 2 Busby was not present at the consultation and he did not meet Garcia. Garcia brought to her consultation a copy of a 2013 divorce decree containing QDRO information, a warranty deed for the house, and a list of debts. Garcia and Sudatu went over the inventory during the meeting. Garcia and Sudatu discussed the fact that relator had been served in 2013, but that he did not respond. 1 See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 2 Julie Sanchez, a senior paralegal at the fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4030508 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ard. Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 288. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4030508 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ortionate division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court found that Bobbye complied with the scheduling order by presenting an inventory and appraisement and proposed disposition of property and debt, while Brentley failed to p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eir own but do have children from previous relationships. As grounds for divorce, Bobbye alleged insupportability, cruel treatment, and adultery. Based on those grounds, she also sought a disproportionate share of the community estate, including Brentley's retirement account. At the time of the divorce, Bobbye worked as director of a residential healthcare partnership for University Medical Center making $94,500 annually, as an accountant. Brentley worked for Matco Tools and testified his base salary at the time of divorce was $75,000 plus certain expenses and commissions. At the final hearing, he introduced a copy of his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): property. At the conclusion of the final hearing, the trial court found Brentley in contempt, and using Bobbye's values, ordered a disproportionate division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court fou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"def17d2b-5786-4e70-810d-8bdde0d63946","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4030508-4030508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4030508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 288","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court found that Bobbye complied with the scheduling order by presenting an inventory and appraisement and proposed disposition of property and debt, while Brentley failed to p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4033606 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARA ROSE CRANDALL AND JONATHAN CHRISTIAN CRANDALL Upon the Petition of SARA ROSE. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 15-1783. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4033606 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted stock assets4 based on the market value Jonathan 2 Jonathan's father holds the $44,000 mortgage on the rental property. 3 Jonathan proposed splitting equally his IRA ($50,155.94) and 401K ($107,894.86). The court agreed, ordered those assets divided by QDRO, and neither party appeals that resolution. See In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) (\"[T]he QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division.\"). 4 Jonathan testified his Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) account held shares of Skyworks stock that he owned and he could immediately s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tions ($198,450) and divided that value equally between the parties, the court failed to further specify distribution of this asset. In Jonathan's rule 1.904(2) motion, he asked the court to modify the decree,6 asserting his vested stock options \"are not a retirement account and cannot be split by a QDRO. They can only be distributed to [Sara] by [Jonathan] exercising them, and then paying income taxes on the amount received.\" Jonathan asked the court to award each party 1250 stock options. According to Jonathan, the court should further order him \"to exercise [Sara's] 1250 shares, have an accountant determine the amount o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n's valuations and also adopted his proposal to equally split his vested stock assets4 based on the market value Jonathan 2 Jonathan's father holds the $44,000 mortgage on the rental property. 3 Jonathan proposed splitting equally his IRA ($50,155.94) and 401K ($107,894.86). The court agreed, ordered those assets divided by QDRO, and neither party appeals that resolution. See In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) (\"[T]he QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division.\"). 4 Jonathan testified his Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"509ee470-60c3-4e2a-99ce-4437e6fcbb92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033606-4033606","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1783","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nal contact with both parents can be satisfied by liberal visitation in various forms). All the witnesses at the dissolution hearing testified the children are doing well under the existing schedule. We affirm the district court's visitation schedule. C. Property Division Jonathan also challenges the economic provisions of the dissolution decree. He claims the court erred in valuing and distributing vested and unvested assets associated with his employment at Skyworks. Concerning his equalization payment to Sara, Jonathan contends the court should have ordered 11 the sale of his property and allowed him to deduct taxe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4033607 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KAREN K. KORN AND JOHN C. KORN Upon the Petition of KAREN K. KORN. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 15-2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4033607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: forts of the parties. No compelling reason exists to deviate from the well-established principal that the parties share equitably in the assets accumulated during the marriage. Accordingly, Karen is awarded one-half of all of John's retirement accounts. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared by Karen's attorney to effectuate this transfer. (Emphasis added.) The district court's reasoning is akin to the reasoning of the dissent in In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 684-87 (Iowa 2005). In Rhinehart, the majority concluded a husband should be awarded his entire retirement account 5 Section 598.21(6) provides: P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties seek an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified on Karen's appeal, and affirm as modified on John's cross-appeal. We modify the spousal support award and fix the same in the amount of $825. We also award the entirety of the Vanguard retirement account to John. Finally, we require John to maintain insurance coverage upon the parties' disabled child as he agreed. I. Scope and Standard of Review. Marriage dissolution proceedings are equitable and our review is de novo. In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). Although we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, we a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . Karen objects to the trial court's failure to order John to pay child support for their twenty-two-year-old autistic son. She also challenges the amount of spousal support ordered and the property distribution. John requests that a greater portion of his pension accounts be awarded to him. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified on Karen's appeal, and affirm as modified on John's cross-appeal. We modify the spousal support award and fix the same in the amount of $825. We also award the entirety of the Vanguard retirement account to John. Finally, we require John to maintain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0982cd31-22ca-489e-90c6-d0b14a2d87a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4033607-4033607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4033607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-2014","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he parties. No compelling reason exists to deviate from the well-established principal that the parties share equitably in the assets accumulated during the marriage. Accordingly, Karen is awarded one-half of all of John's retirement accounts. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared by Karen's attorney to effectuate this transfer. (Emphasis added.) The district court's reasoning is akin to the reasoning of the dissent in In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 684-87 (Iowa 2005). In Rhinehart, the majority concluded a husband should be awarded his entire retirement account 5 Section 598.21(6) provides: P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4035344 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 567 F.2d 1252. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4035344 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vernment is all marital property up until August 31, 1994,\" and that: \"[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as of August 31, 1994, said benefits to be divided pursuant to the same formula in assessing or ordering Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO), to wit: 50% of the accrued benefits for the period November 1, 1968 to August 31, 1994. Payment of said benefit shall commence when the pension goes into pay status.\" ¶4 In 2012, William retired from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after 43 years of employment. William's pension is held by the Civil Service Retirement System and ad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed a request for the marital portion of the annuity payments\" with the OPM. This request included a copy of the July 1996 court order. On September 6, 2012, OPM responded in a letter stating that \"[b]y court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 50% of 322 months of service during the marriage divided by 532 months of Federal service or 30.26% of your spouse's retirement benefit. The marital share times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $8936 provides for a $2,704.03 monthly payment to you.\" Beginning October 1, 2012, OPM issued Stella monthly distributions of $2,704.03. ¶6 Will"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of Hunt, 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1979) (Hunt formula). We affirm. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 On August 31, 1994, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving William and Stella Sanders' 26-year marriage. The judgment reserved the issue of the division of William's pension. On July 11, 1996, after a trial before Judge James G. Donegan, a supplemental 1-14-3681 judgment for dissolution was entered, finding the \"pension of the Respondent through his employment with the United States Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994,\" and that: \"[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24eed352-d647-43d1-9e0b-4649f1d94c0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4035344-4035344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4035344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"567 F.2d 1252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: share of his pension benefits that she has not received, and (4) an award of attorney fees. ¶9 In response, William argued that his retirement plan is a federal government plan exempt from the previsions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2006)) and managed by the OPM; according to OPM regulations Stella was required to follow procedures to apply for pension benefits; OPM's September 2012 letter miscalculated Stella's benefits based on 322 months of service during marriage where the marriage lasted only 303 months; therefore, OPM properly recalculated Stella's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4036750 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of O'Malley. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4036750 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: olution of marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: court did here. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164. ¶ 43 In Hall, the petitioner and respondent's judgment for dissolution of marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: respondent's] retirement plans valued as of the date of the entry of this [judgment for dissolution of marriage].' \" Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. After the division of assets, the petitioner noticed that she had not received benefits from two additional pension plans belonging to the respondent and filed a petition to modify or reform the dissolution judgment, alleging that the pension plans had been omitted from the MSA due to a mutual 5 Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, any party, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, may file a motion for a rehearing, retrial, or modification of the jud"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"535686b1-0d82-41df-967e-ed2b21f7b53f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4036750-4036750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4036750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4037924 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACOB LEIB AND ABBY JO LEIB Upon the Petition of JESSE JACOB LEIB. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 15-1918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4037924 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 682 (Iowa 2013). In this case, the Benson formula would equitably divide this asset, and we see no reason to deviate from its application. We remand for the district court 16 to order the appropriate allocation and direct counsel to prepare the necessary qualified domestic relations order. 4. Income Tax Exemptions Abby appeals the district court's deviation from the pretrial stipulation in its award of tax exemptions and credits for the children. In light of the above change in the physical-care arrangement, we remand for the district court to determine the appropriate division of the income tax exemptions and credits for the childre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: In May 2015, the parties filed a pretrial stipulation in which they agreed to the following relevant things: (1) the distribution of the dependency exemptions, (2) the distribution of their vehicles, checking and savings accounts, Abby's horses, and Abby's pension; and (3) the distribution of their liabilities, including an approximate $31,000 loan owed on Jesse's 401(k) policy, for which Jesse accepted liability. The parties disputed physical care and visitation, alimony, attorney fees, and the distribution of Jesse's 401(k), Jesse's pension, and monies held in a trust account. At the conclusion of a three-day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1) the distribution of the dependency exemptions, (2) the distribution of their vehicles, checking and savings accounts, Abby's horses, and Abby's pension; and (3) the distribution of their liabilities, including an approximate $31,000 loan owed on Jesse's 401(k) policy, for which Jesse accepted liability. The parties disputed physical care and visitation, alimony, attorney fees, and the distribution of Jesse's 401(k), Jesse's pension, and monies held in a trust account. At the conclusion of a three-day trial, the district court allowed Abby to move to Wisconsin and lifted any restrictions on her taking the ch"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfbf24f2-38b8-4f17-84e7-e58495ec2314","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4037924-4037924","title":"CourtListener opinion 4037924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2013). In this case, the Benson formula would equitably divide this asset, and we see no reason to deviate from its application. We remand for the district court 16 to order the appropriate allocation and direct counsel to prepare the necessary qualified domestic relations order. 4. Income Tax Exemptions Abby appeals the district court's deviation from the pretrial stipulation in its award of tax exemptions and credits for the children. In light of the above change in the physical-care arrangement, we remand for the district court to determine the appropriate division of the income tax exemptions and credits for the childre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c9ccf9-c6f7-49bf-bf7d-6714e3b3cd0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719","title":"CourtListener opinion 4042719","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4042719 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4042719 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c9ccf9-c6f7-49bf-bf7d-6714e3b3cd0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719","title":"CourtListener opinion 4042719","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c9ccf9-c6f7-49bf-bf7d-6714e3b3cd0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719","title":"CourtListener opinion 4042719","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Paul\"). By three issues, which we address as one, appellant Tracie Marie Scheffler f/k/a Tracie Marie Parson (\"Tracie\") contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing her petition to correct or amend a domestic relations order (\"DRO\") concerning military retirement benefits and (2) failing to grant the relief she requested in her petition to correct or amend the DRO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 Tracie and Paul were married in 2004. On May 24, 2011, the trial court and the parties signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce along with a DRO. The divorce decree provided that Tracie was to receive a portion of Paul's militar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c9ccf9-c6f7-49bf-bf7d-6714e3b3cd0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719","title":"CourtListener opinion 4042719","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to dismiss filed by appellee, Paul Michael Parsons (\"Paul\"). By three issues, which we address as one, appellant Tracie Marie Scheffler f/k/a Tracie Marie Parson (\"Tracie\") contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing her petition to correct or amend a domestic relations order (\"DRO\") concerning military retirement benefits and (2) failing to grant the relief she requested in her petition to correct or amend the DRO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 Tracie and Paul were married in 2004. On May 24, 2011, the trial court and the parties signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce along with a DRO. The divorce decree provided that T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5c9ccf9-c6f7-49bf-bf7d-6714e3b3cd0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4042719-4042719","title":"CourtListener opinion 4042719","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: y or unreasonably, or without any reference to guiding rules and principles. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 499 (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)). \"A judgment finalizing a divorce and dividing marital property bars relitigation of the property division, even if the decree incorrectly characterizes or divides the property.\" Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. 2011). Seeking an order that alters or modifies a divorce decree's property division constitutes an impermissible collateral attack. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.007(a), (b); Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. 2009); see Seabron, 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4044353 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moncey. Extracted reporter citation: 286 S.W.3d 619. Docket: 06-14-00101-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4044353 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e account after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s[,] separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed.6 6 The trial court also issued certain findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the 401(k) account. The court found: 8. Prior to the parties' marriage, Respondent began making contributions into the Texas Bank 401k Plan. As of the date of the marriage of the parties, the b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property\" as separate property. Conversely, the Agreement classified account contributions as community property. The Agreement provided that \"[a]ll employer or employee contributions made during this marriage to any retirement annuity contract, individual retirement account, profitsharing or pension plan or any other retirement savings arrangement . . . together with all future increment in value attributable to such contributions . . . shall be community property.\" 1 The trial court concluded that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. 2 Ben entered the marriage with a 401(k) account through his employer, Citizens Na"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rsely, the Agreement classified account contributions as community property. The Agreement provided that \"[a]ll employer or employee contributions made during this marriage to any retirement annuity contract, individual retirement account, profitsharing or pension plan or any other retirement savings arrangement . . . together with all future increment in value attributable to such contributions . . . shall be community property.\" 1 The trial court concluded that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. 2 Ben entered the marriage with a 401(k) account through his employer, Citizens National Bank. The account v"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ca4244b-5563-41aa-b79c-88484e558877","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4044353-4044353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4044353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"286 S.W.3d 619","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ourt No. 2011-12-590-CCL Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION When Emma Ruth (Ruthie) Vinson and Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr. (Ben), were divorced, the trial court awarded $243,000.00 in Ben's 401(k) plan to him as his separate property. The trial court classified the remainder of the 401(k) plan funds as community property and divided it equally between the parties. Ben appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to classify $113,206.37 in interest and account earnings—as opposed to contributions to the account—as his separat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4046778 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 782. Docket: 06-14-00101-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4046778 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the account after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed.\" (CR, 28) Property Awarded To Wife: W-5 \"A portion of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s retirement benefits in the Texas Bank 401k Plan arising out of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s employment with Texas Bank as of the date that the Final Decree is signed by the Court, that portion being FIFTY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: # ¶ 2.03 provides that separate property identified to the Agreement is to be preserved before, during, and after the marriage # ¶ 2.04 provides generally that property acquired during the marriage, including income, compensation and contributions to a retirement account, which is not otherwise defined as separate property by the Agreement, is community property, and contains a provision which transforms separate property to community property under certain, limited conditions. # ¶ 2.06 provides that income earned from and enhancement of value to the parties' separate property identified to and incorporated into th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): NO. 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The trial court abused its discretion in failing to confirm the interest and accumulations upon Appellant's separate property interest in Appellant's Texas Bank 401k Plan as Appellant's separate property, and partitioning the same as property of the community estate. PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . ."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca30a9e-b22e-4747-ac12-707859ab8fd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4046778-4046778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4046778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-14-00101-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 782","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed.\" (CR, 28) Property Awarded To Wife: W-5 \"A portion of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s retirement benefits in the Texas Bank 401k Plan arising out of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s employment with Texas Bank as of the date that the Final Decree is signed by the Court, that portion being FIFTY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4047899 Extracted case name: APPELLANT v. TRISHA DUNAHOO. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 07-15-00029-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4047899 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ee. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.002, 9.006(a), 9.008 (West). The court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the original division of the property. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.008(b); see also § 9.1045(a) (providing that a \"court that renders a qualified domestic relations order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court\"). However, after its plenary power expires, a court may not alter, amend, or modify the substantive division of property in 13 the decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007(a) (Wes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t 9.101 and 9.1045. (1R.R. at 16)He requested that the court enter a correct DRO. (1R.R. at 17) The parties agreed that if she testified she would say that her intention at the time of the divorce was to receive (1R.R. at 18) the standard division of the retirement benefits. (1R.R. at 19) 11 Appellant's Argument I The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to remove the provision ending the award of military retirement because it modified an unambiguous substantive property division from the divorce decree and the 2008 domestic relations order. Response to Appellant Argument I: The Trial Court retains s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ns Order, such as the one here, \"is a species of post-divorce enforcement order.\" Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App. 2011)(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). The purpose of a Domestic Relations Order is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. at 353–54. The purpose is not to award separate property or to divest a party of property. A trial court that renders a divorce decree generally retains the power to enforce or clarify the property divisi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53cb49c5-2519-4740-85b7-274b0aafc256","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4047899-4047899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4047899","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"07-15-00029-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ........ 8 APPELLANT ARGUMENT I: The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to remove the provision ending the award of military retirement because it modified an unambiguous substantive property division from the divorce decree and the 2008 domestic relations order………………………………………………………12 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT ARGUMENT I: The Trial Court retains subject matter of the Domestic Relationship Order under Chapters 9.104 and 9.1045 of the Texas Family Code. Under these chapters, the court can amend the Domestic Relationship Order……..12 APPELLANT ARGUMENT II: The District Court erred in emoving the end of award provision fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79f5a40c-c3ea-45f7-be52-26a5bad4a1e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4048182","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-10-0579-CVW","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4048182 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 10-10-0579-CVW. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4048182 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79f5a40c-c3ea-45f7-be52-26a5bad4a1e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4048182","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-10-0579-CVW","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"79f5a40c-c3ea-45f7-be52-26a5bad4a1e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4048182-4048182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4048182","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-10-0579-CVW","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ect the trial court's final decree of divorce and order for military retirement. 1. The trial court, cause number, and style of this case are as shown in the caption above. 2. On May 24, 2011, the trial court signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order for Military Retirement in this suit. 3. On January 8, 2015, TRACIE MARIE SCHEFFLER, Petitioner, filed her Petition to Correct or Amend Domestic Relations Order for Military Retirement in this case. 4. On February 13, 2015, the trial court signed an Order sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction filed by Respondent, PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, and dismissed Petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4049333 Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 74. Docket: 01-14-00761-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4049333 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ............................................................................................................ 29 Appellee's Reply Brief Page 9 of 61 STATEMENT OF THE CASE (pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d)) 1. NATURE OF THE CASE This is an appeal of a QDRO dividing pension benefits earned by Mr. Howard through his employment with the Houston Police Department. The pension benefits are administrated through the Houston Police Offices Pension System (or often referred to as \"HPOPS\"). This is not a direct appeal of the underlying \"Decree of Divorce\" (or Decree) signed by the trial court on November 28, 1988"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rt rendered a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between Stephen Henry Howard and Winnie Jewel Howard. The November 28, 1988 \"Decree of Divorce\" awarded Winnie Jewel Howard [o]ne half of any and all sums related to any vested profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan or accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit programs Appellee's Reply Brief Page 11 of 61 [existing] by reason of Petitioner's employment during the marriage. 4. Since the November 28, 1988 \"Decree of Divorce\" is final, the decretal language (as quoted above) is operative as to Stephen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: .............................................. 16 1. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...................................................... 16 2. STEPHEN HENRY HOWARD'S EMPLOYMENT WITH HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT......................................... 17 3. HPOPS PENSION BENEFITS ................................................... 18 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................. 23 1. ISSUE 1 AND 2: THE NOVEMBER 28, 1988 \"DECREE OF DIVORCE\" .................................................................................... 23 A. AMBIGUITY .................................."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7723c7-d271-4bba-b664-c42d50ad98d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4049333-4049333","title":"CourtListener opinion 4049333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"01-14-00761-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: 4, no pet.). HPOPS is a single employer defined benefit pension plan covering police officers employed full time by the City of Houston. HPOPS is a local government plan and, therefore, is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). HPOPS contains different benefits that vest upon a certain number of years of credited service with the City of Houston. A brief overview of each of these benefits and the time that each of these benefits vest are listed in the following table: Vesting Period Benefit Less than 10 Return of Contributions: Credit is years of service2 automatically"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4052374 Extracted reporter citation: 87 S.W.3d 538. Docket: 2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4052374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a White and James N. White, Jr. were married on January 11, 1995. Barbara filed for divorce in November 2012. James filed a counter-petition for divorce. The case was tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years into his marriage with Barbara, and after thirty years of employment — and began participating in the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nds that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to apportion James's retirement benefits properly; (2) failing to divide 1 The DROP program is an optional method to receive benefits available to firefighters with 20 or more years of credited pension service. This program allows an individual to continue working and receiving a salary for up to ten years; the monthly retirement annuity the individual could have received during that period is credited to an account in the individual's name where it earns interest at a guaranteed annual rate. 2 the community property interest in the cost-of-living adju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bbd821d3-9935-4b18-b3a9-0ead34aad013","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4052374-4052374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4052374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White","extracted_reporter_citation":"87 S.W.3d 538","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d James N. White, Jr. were married on January 11, 1995. Barbara filed for divorce in November 2012. James filed a counter-petition for divorce. The case was tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf6e9c06-4eee-4871-8519-1b499ccc2e36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802","title":"CourtListener opinion 4056802","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4056802 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4056802 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf6e9c06-4eee-4871-8519-1b499ccc2e36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802","title":"CourtListener opinion 4056802","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf6e9c06-4eee-4871-8519-1b499ccc2e36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802","title":"CourtListener opinion 4056802","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ppellant's request for a name change REVERSED and ordered severed and REMAND to the trial court to either grant the requested name change or state a reason in the decree for not doing so. We AFFIRM the remainder of the trial court's final divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order. We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf6e9c06-4eee-4871-8519-1b499ccc2e36","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4056802-4056802","title":"CourtListener opinion 4056802","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: DGMENT The Fourteenth Court of Appeals BARBARA WHITE, Appellant NO. 14-14-00593-CV V. JAMES N. WHITE, JR. AND AUDREY R. GORHAM, Appellees ________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the trial court's final divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order signed April 22, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in denying appellant's requested name change without explanation. We therefore order the portion of the final divorce decree denying without explanation appellant's request for a name change REVERSED and ordered severed and REMAND to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4062993 Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.2d 42. Docket: sheet on the samedate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4062993 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: RIK's employment with Matco Tools as of the date that the Final Decree of Divorce is signed by the Court, that portion being 48%, together with any interesti dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day thid Final Decree of Divorce is signed. H-7. All policies of life insurance (including cash values) insuring the husband's life. H-8. Tile 2014 Ford F 150 motor vehicle, vehicle identification number ______________ tdgether with all prepaid insurance, keys, and title documents. H-9. Tile 2006 Harley Davidson Motorcycle, v"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rust account. (R.R. Vol 3 Exhibit 9),Exhibit 10, was introduced 5 into evidence showing the fair market value of the parties community and debt. In particular the exhibit shows that Matco 401K of Appellant which had a value of $297,630.00 and Appellee' s retirement plan with MetLife TSA showing a value of $42,609.00. (R.R. Vol 3, Petitioner Ex 10). Petitioner Exhibit 11 was introduced into evidence showing the alleged personal property in each parties possession with Appellee, claiming she had only retained $8,025.00 of personal property, and Appellee alleging Appellant had retained $59,860 worth of personal property w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he wife's sole control. W-4. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, togetWer with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any prbfit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401~k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the wife's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to Me~life TSA 073728187 AB. — W-5. A~portion of BRENTLEY WAYNE HRNCIRIK's retirement benefits in Matöd 40 1(k) arising out of BRENT"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9562a5f3-6420-4e6b-abd5-86d1cf72bac2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4062993-4062993","title":"CourtListener opinion 4062993","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet on the samedate","extracted_reporter_citation":"687 S.W.2d 42","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): time of the divorce there was $14,891.14 in Appellee' s Attorney's trust account. (R.R. Vol 3 Exhibit 9),Exhibit 10, was introduced 5 into evidence showing the fair market value of the parties community and debt. In particular the exhibit shows that Matco 401K of Appellant which had a value of $297,630.00 and Appellee' s retirement plan with MetLife TSA showing a value of $42,609.00. (R.R. Vol 3, Petitioner Ex 10). Petitioner Exhibit 11 was introduced into evidence showing the alleged personal property in each parties possession with Appellee, claiming she had only retained $8,025.00 of personal property, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4063996 Extracted reporter citation: 582 S.W.2d 883. Docket: 06-15-0041-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4063996 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: me. 1 RR 84:1-8 -16- 39. Wilder further testified that the prior action was dismissed for want of prosecution in 1993 and had no explanation for the dismissal except what appeared in the docket. 1 RR 84:12–85:5. 40. Wilder agreed that \"that if a proper qualified domestic relations order had been prepared subsequent to the hearing in October 1993, that that would have disposed of all of these issues and we wouldn't be here today.\" 1 RR 85:9-14. 41. The trial court orally found and ruled during the hearing as follows: A. There was $306,306.00 in the retirement account when Appellant retired. 1 RR 93:16-18. B. \"that it was necessary"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r about August 1, 1988. 1 Supp. CR 7-13. 4. On or about December 4, 1992, Appellee, Elizabeth Holoubek, filed a Motion for Division of Property Not Divided on Divorce, by and through her attorney Clay Wilder, seeking a post-decree division of Appellant's retirement benefits from Texas Eastman Company. 1 Supp. CR 14-23. 1 This cause number controlled the action until Appellee filed a Petition for Division of Property Not Divided on Divorce on or about September 13, 2012 under a new cause number. -6- 5. The trial court took testimony and argument in a hearing on or about October 12, 1993. The court designated this as a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 4:1-8 -16- 39. Wilder further testified that the prior action was dismissed for want of prosecution in 1993 and had no explanation for the dismissal except what appeared in the docket. 1 RR 84:12–85:5. 40. Wilder agreed that \"that if a proper qualified domestic relations order had been prepared subsequent to the hearing in October 1993, that that would have disposed of all of these issues and we wouldn't be here today.\" 1 RR 85:9-14. 41. The trial court orally found and ruled during the hearing as follows: A. There was $306,306.00 in the retirement account when Appellant retired. 1 RR 93:16-18. B. \"that it was necessary"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c48e122e-5266-4a0d-bc9d-7c5ba6ab8efa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4063996-4063996","title":"CourtListener opinion 4063996","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-15-0041-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"582 S.W.2d 883","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: with the original divorce and post-decree petition filed under Rusk County Court at Law Cause No. 88- 05-260CCL. The Supplemental Clerk's Record will be cited as \"[Vol #] Supp. CR [Page #s]:[Line #s].\" -1- STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for property division issues in family law cases is generally abuse of discretion. A trial court has broad discretion in dividing the \"estate of the parties,\" but must confine itself to community property. Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Tex.1977). The trial court's discretion to divide marital property upon divorce should be corrected on appeal only when an a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d2ce22-91b9-4d7a-99c3-949448543367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154","title":"CourtListener opinion 4064154","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4064154 Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4064154 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d2ce22-91b9-4d7a-99c3-949448543367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154","title":"CourtListener opinion 4064154","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d2ce22-91b9-4d7a-99c3-949448543367","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4064154-4064154","title":"CourtListener opinion 4064154","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: D). It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by the Court that said Motion for Continuance be: GRANTED [ ] DENIED [ ] and if Granted, the Hearing to Enter Order be set for SIGNED and ENTERED this the _ day of , 201. JUDGE PRESIDING CHERIE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER [Military Retirement! The Court, having entered a decree of divorce coincident with the signing of this domestic relations order, finding that the entry of a domestic relations order (DRO) is necessary to effectuate the terms of that decree of divorce, and further finding that the entry of a DRO is appropriate, makes the following findings and conclusion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"831c3eb4-8db6-43d8-b55a-488746a4dea1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578","title":"CourtListener opinion 4065578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f","extracted_reporter_citation":"41 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4065578 Extracted reporter citation: 41 S.W.3d 470. Docket: entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4065578 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"831c3eb4-8db6-43d8-b55a-488746a4dea1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578","title":"CourtListener opinion 4065578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f","extracted_reporter_citation":"41 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"831c3eb4-8db6-43d8-b55a-488746a4dea1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578","title":"CourtListener opinion 4065578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f","extracted_reporter_citation":"41 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: condition of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal followed. Presenting three points for decision, Husband challenges certai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"831c3eb4-8db6-43d8-b55a-488746a4dea1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578","title":"CourtListener opinion 4065578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f","extracted_reporter_citation":"41 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the sale of said real estate. As a further condition of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"831c3eb4-8db6-43d8-b55a-488746a4dea1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4065578-4065578","title":"CourtListener opinion 4065578","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f","extracted_reporter_citation":"41 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal followed. Presenting three points for decision, Husband challenges certai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db52f164-bd38-4ad9-8cc2-f8e3be498f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4066162","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4066162 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4066162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db52f164-bd38-4ad9-8cc2-f8e3be498f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4066162","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db52f164-bd38-4ad9-8cc2-f8e3be498f15","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4066162-4066162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4066162","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Third Point of Error The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the relief requested by Appellant to clarify the valuation of the military retirement in the decree of divorce and the domestic relations order. vii NO. 13-15-00150-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TRACIE MARIE SCHEFFLER F/K/A TRACIE MARIE PARSON, APPELLANT, v. PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, APPELLEE. On Appeal From the 81st Judicial District Court of Wilson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 10-10-0579-CVW APPELLANT'S BRIEF TO THE HONORA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4070471 Docket: 7295801 By: Raven Hubbard. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4070471 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aron Wayne Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Services, LLC, and that the parties submit necessary documents to QDRO Services by 5:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2015. (See pg. 2, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dditionally, the Petitioner requested that 2 my attorney, Shirley A. Mitchell, prepare the QDRO documents then refused to pay the amount requested. I have already paid the requested fees to Shirley A. Mitchell for the preparation of the UPS and Air Force retirement benefits. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court can only compel a party to perform (Rule 215) or comply with a specific act (Rule 198) if there is an underlying order or discovery request. The facts alleged in the Petitioner's pleadings do not create a liability to the Respondent despite the Respondent's failure to appear at the hearing. (See Exh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): his Court's judgment. Specifically, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support this Court's judgment based on the following findings of fact: b. That, Petitioner was awarded 50% of Respondent, Aaron Wayne Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Serv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0748da4-5f20-46b6-9604-c4503dc9b71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070471-4070471","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070471","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7295801 By: Raven Hubbard","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Services, LLC, and that the parties submit necessary documents to QDRO Services by 5:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2015. (See pg. 2, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4070475 Extracted case name: S.V. v. R.V. Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Docket: 03-15-00008-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4070475 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of which shall be the number of years Husband or his employer, or both, contributed to the plan or benefit) times the amount of the benefit received by Husband. (CR 1:14; RR 3:PX#5; FF#1) (Appendices 2-3). There was no evidence introduced at trial that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, (\"QDRO\"), to this effect was ever entered by any trial court or that Conoco was ever placed on notice of this particular provision of the Settlement Agreement. M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits. Paul testified he began working for Conoco on February 12, 1979. (RR 1:6; FF#2) (Appendix 2). Over the next twenty-six years, Paul continued h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Parties' Marital History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Parties' Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Division of Paul's Retirement Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 M Teresa's Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Standards of Review . . . ."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: affirmative defenses, and requested a hearing. (CR 1:25-26). On or about April 3, 2014, Teresa filed a Motion for Enforcement of Order seeking to enforce a specific provision of the parties' divorce decree pertaining to the division of Paul's retirement pension. (CR 1:35-37). A bench trial was held on July 22, 2014. (RR 1: 1). At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court took the matter under consideration. (RR 2:30). On or about August 20, 2014, the trial court issued a letter ruling, and on September 15, 2014, the trial court entered a written judgment denying all of Paul's affirmative defenses,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2a3a27f-cc72-45dd-bae0-064dad684777","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4070475-4070475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4070475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-15-00008-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: shall be the number of years Husband or his employer, or both, contributed to the plan or benefit) times the amount of the benefit received by Husband. (CR 1:14; RR 3:PX#5; FF#1) (Appendices 2-3). There was no evidence introduced at trial that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, (\"QDRO\"), to this effect was ever entered by any trial court or that Conoco was ever placed on notice of this particular provision of the Settlement Agreement. M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits. Paul testified he began working for Conoco on February 12, 1979. (RR 1:6; FF#2) (Appendix 2). Over the next twenty-six years, Paul continued h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e60a85b6-632c-4d4e-91ee-33c0cc4349d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691","title":"CourtListener opinion 4076691","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4076691 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4076691 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e60a85b6-632c-4d4e-91ee-33c0cc4349d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691","title":"CourtListener opinion 4076691","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e60a85b6-632c-4d4e-91ee-33c0cc4349d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4076691-4076691","title":"CourtListener opinion 4076691","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-15-00150-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. 3.) The trial court ruled properly and within its discretion in dismissing the relief requested by Appellant to clarify the valuation of the military retirement in the decree of divorce and domestic relations order -v- ABBREVIATIONS & RECORD REFERENCES Abbreviations: Paul Michael Parson. (Appellee) .......................................................Mr. Parson Tracie Marie Sheffler (Appellant) .................................................. Mrs. Sheffler Han. Russell Wilson ............................................. Judge Wilson or the Trial Com1 Reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4084393 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084393 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 5, 2012. The order, among other things, distributed defendant's pension benefits. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this postjudgment matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that directed the New York State and Local Retirement System (retirement system) to pay his ex-wife her marital share of defendant's pension pursuant to the Majauskas formula (see Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 489-491). Although no appeal lies as of right from a QDRO (see Andress v Andress, 97 AD3d 1151, 1152; Cuda v Cuda [appeal No. 2], 19 AD3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ZIMMERMAN & TYO, ATTORNEYS, SHORTSVILLE (JOHN E. TYO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (William F. Kocher, A.J.), entered January 25, 2012. The order, among other things, distributed defendant's pension benefits. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this postjudgment matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that directed the New York State and Local Retirement System (retirement system) to pay his ex-wife her marital share of defendan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): me Court held in Jerry L.C. v Lucille H.C. [448 A2d 223, 226], ‘[s]ince each employment year is counted for pension purposes each contributes to the high salary years' \" (id. at 492). The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable because they involve defined contribution retirement plans (see Wegman v Wegman, 123 AD2d 220; Kammerer v Kammerer, 2001 NY Slip Op 40218[U]), whereas here defendant has a defined benefit plan. Defendant further contends, seemingly in the alternative, that the QDRO is inconsistent with the parties' stipulation, which he interprets as giving plaintiff a share of his pension as if he retired on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"769fc6e8-024e-44a7-99aa-968968386dec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084393-4084393","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084393","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ncement of the divorce action. We reject that contention. As the Court of Appeals stated in Majauskas, where the pension participant made a similar argument, the fact that a participant's three highest years of earnings may occur after divorce does affect the alternate payee's marital share of the -2- 679 CA 12-00806 pension benefits, \"for as the Delaware Supreme Court held in Jerry L.C. v Lucille H.C. [448 A2d 223, 226], ‘[s]ince each employment year is counted for pension purposes each contributes to the high salary years' \" (id. at 492). The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable because they involve defined c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c299f98e-ecb3-4c7c-8faa-5a196ea89608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4084534 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084534 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c299f98e-ecb3-4c7c-8faa-5a196ea89608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c299f98e-ecb3-4c7c-8faa-5a196ea89608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c299f98e-ecb3-4c7c-8faa-5a196ea89608","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084534-4084534","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084534","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"438880dc-f813-4edd-a52d-e25de0ed41d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084788","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4084788 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084788 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"438880dc-f813-4edd-a52d-e25de0ed41d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084788","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"438880dc-f813-4edd-a52d-e25de0ed41d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084788","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: id defendant starts to obtain his pension.\" Defendant began receiving pension benefits in March 1991. Plaintiff, however, was unaware that defendant was receiving such benefits and she did not begin to receive her share until October 2005, when she obtained a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). By notice of motion filed October 21, 2010, plaintiff sought her share of pension benefits received by defendant from the date of his retirement in March 1991 until October 2005, when plaintiff began prospectively receiving her share of such benefits pursuant to the QDRO. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Plaintif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"438880dc-f813-4edd-a52d-e25de0ed41d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084788","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: granted the motion of plaintiff for a money judgment against defendant. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying plaintiff's motion in part and directing that defendant pay plaintiff her share of any pension payment defendant received on or after October 21, 2004, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this post-matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from an order that granted plaintiff's motion seeking a money judgment for sums allegedly due to plaintiff as her share of defendant's pension benefits. The judgment of divorce, en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"438880dc-f813-4edd-a52d-e25de0ed41d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4084788-4084788","title":"CourtListener opinion 4084788","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt starts to obtain his pension.\" Defendant began receiving pension benefits in March 1991. Plaintiff, however, was unaware that defendant was receiving such benefits and she did not begin to receive her share until October 2005, when she obtained a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). By notice of motion filed October 21, 2010, plaintiff sought her share of pension benefits received by defendant from the date of his retirement in March 1991 until October 2005, when plaintiff began prospectively receiving her share of such benefits pursuant to the QDRO. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Plaintif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd92e832-dacc-4069-b04c-8ed6b5433ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828","title":"CourtListener opinion 4085828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 as an application for leave to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4085828 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2 as an application for leave to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4085828 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd92e832-dacc-4069-b04c-8ed6b5433ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828","title":"CourtListener opinion 4085828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 as an application for leave to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd92e832-dacc-4069-b04c-8ed6b5433ae4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4085828-4085828","title":"CourtListener opinion 4085828","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 as an application for leave to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: award is not appropriate, and we therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by denying that part of plaintiff's motion seeking counsel fees and vacating the award of counsel fees. With respect to appeal No. 2, we note that defendant appeals from an amended domestic relations order (DRO) and that no appeal as of right lies from a DRO (see Cuda v Cuda [appeal No. 2], 19 AD3d 1114, 1114). While we may treat the notice of appeal in appeal No. 2 as an application for leave to appeal (see id.), we see no need to do so in light of our determination in appeal No. 1. Entered: July 6, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4087651 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4087651 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: entitled to have it at the point of [defendant's] retirement,\" plaintiff was entitled to share in the pension \"[p]ursuant to the Majauskas formula\" (Majauskas -2- 342 CA 10-02257 v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). Thereafter, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered, which provided that, \"at such time as [defendant] has retired from and is actually receiving a retirement allowance from the New York State and Local Retirement Systems, [plaintiff] shall be awarded that proportion of 50 percent of each retirement check of the participant for which number of months the parties were married and where the partic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ordering paragraphs into the \"corrected order,\" which is the sole document before us on this appeal. The court, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiff, the ex-wife of defendant, seeking a money judgment for her unpaid share of defendant's New York State retirement benefits, directed the entry of a wage deduction order against defendant to enforce the parties' stipulation regarding his retirement benefits, and awarded attorney's fees to plaintiff. We conclude that the court erred in granting plaintiff's motion. The parties' judgment of divorce, entered in 1996, incorporated a stipulation placed on the record concerning the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ghts of plaintiff to defendant's retirement benefits. During the course of the parties' marriage, defendant was employed as a police officer by the City of Little Falls, and he became vested in the New York State retirement system. With respect to defendant's pension, the parties' stipulation provided that, \"as of the date that they would be entitled to have it at the point of [defendant's] retirement,\" plaintiff was entitled to share in the pension \"[p]ursuant to the Majauskas formula\" (Majauskas -2- 342 CA 10-02257 v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). Thereafter, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered, which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13a0bff1-0b7f-4337-a108-d08be2a8445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087651-4087651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: sdiction over court officers in Herkimer County, whereupon defendant's salary was increased to $43,802, thus exceeding the $30,000 then permitted by section 212 (2). As a result, defendant's retirement benefits for 2008, including the payments to plaintiff as alternate payee, were suspended as of September 2008, when his total earnings exceeded $30,000, subject to reinstatement in January 2009. Plaintiff thereafter moved, inter alia, for a money judgment for 2008 arrears in the amount of $3,084.44 and a wage deduction order to enforce her future rights to the pension. We conclude that the court erred in granting plaintiff's m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a35caccd-9981-49fe-aa49-96cc00328cc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4087981 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4087981 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a35caccd-9981-49fe-aa49-96cc00328cc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a35caccd-9981-49fe-aa49-96cc00328cc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: CONE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff \"raised timely objections prior to the ent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a35caccd-9981-49fe-aa49-96cc00328cc8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4087981-4087981","title":"CourtListener opinion 4087981","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: UNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff \"raised timely objections prior to the ent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9e9d55b-a7fc-4a88-a33a-03fee124e4d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4089617 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4089617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9e9d55b-a7fc-4a88-a33a-03fee124e4d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9e9d55b-a7fc-4a88-a33a-03fee124e4d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: elected to receive CRSC, which resulted in a diminution of his retirement pay and plaintiff's 50 percent award of that pay. See Megee, 290 Mich App at 561 (\"Plaintiff elected CRSC, which effectively discontinued his retirement pay that had been subject to the QDRO, halting payments to defendant.\"). The Megee panel observed the following concerning CRSC and the division of waived retirement pay related to CRSC, i.e., retirement pay that is not being received because of a CRSC election: The trial court here effectively divided plaintiff's CRSC and, although Mansell did not directly address division of disability pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9e9d55b-a7fc-4a88-a33a-03fee124e4d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: el for both parties acknowledged that the language was awkward, but explained that the intent was simply to address a scenario in which defendant became entitled to and accepted more disability benefits than currently being received, inversely diminishing the retirement benefits that were being divided and awarded to plaintiff. The purpose of the offset provision was to protect plaintiff in such a scenario. The trial court also discussed the offset provision with defendant in the following exchange: Court. All right, . . . Mr. Foster, you do acknowledge that if you were to defer any of your current military retirement pay or co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9e9d55b-a7fc-4a88-a33a-03fee124e4d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089617-4089617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: of the judgment. *** We hold that a military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment's property division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary to the terms of the divorce judgment. Conceptually, and consistently with extensive caselaw from other jurisdictions, we are dividing waived retirement pay in order to honor the terms and intent of the divo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4089822 Docket: 329152 Marquette Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4089822 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t $17,000 in regard to the value of the vehicles. -3- $21,751 that is to be transferred to defendant from the IRA in order to equalize the distribution of retirement accounts; and two pensions, \"less a 50% marital interest awarded\" to defendant pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). Under the divorce judgment, defendant was awarded: the 2002 pickup truck, 2003 Chevy Impala, and the 2015 GMC pickup truck; the 2008 Lund boat, motor, and trailer, and the associated debt; the aluminum boat and snowmobile; all of the personal property currently in his possession; one-half of the balance in jointly-held bank accounts; his 401(k), \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l court also ordered that, for purposes of equalizing the personal property distribution where defendant was awarded personal property with a higher total value, the offset was to be paid to plaintiff out of proceeds from the sale of the marital home, not the retirement accounts.4 A judgment of divorce was subsequently entered. The divorce judgment incorporated by reference a uniform spousal support order, which provided that plaintiff is to pay defendant $2,000 per month in spousal support for a period of 72 months, subject to early termination on the basis of defendant's remarriage or plaintiff's death and subject to modificat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: th the [MDOC], he has not made any effort to find employment, though it appears he has the ability to work in some 2 We shall discuss the pertinent trial testimony in the analysis section of this opinion. 3 The trial court acknowledged defendant's current pension income. The court also discounted plaintiff's suggestion that defendant could apply for social security disability benefits. We shall elaborate on these matters later. -2- capacity. Even with working at full capacity, however, he would not earn an income comparable to that of the Plaintiff. In consideration of all relevant spousal support factors, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0814e0b4-f72f-414c-a2ea-bdd61bc62220","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4089822-4089822","title":"CourtListener opinion 4089822","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329152 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nt of divorce awarded plaintiff: all of the personal property currently in her possession; the 2013 Chevy Impala, along with the associated debt; one-half of the balance in savings, checking, and other depository accounts held jointly by the parties; her IRA, 401(k), and Roth IRA, less 4 In a joint trial statement regarding assets and liabilities, the parties agreed with respect to the valuation of the marital property, except for a $200 difference relative to a 2002 pickup truck and a $200 difference concerning a small aluminum boat. The marital home was valued at $268,000 on the basis of an appraisal, with a mortga"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4090163 Extracted case name: LEANN BARNES v. DAVID ELLETT BARNES. Extracted reporter citation: 975 S.W.2d 303. Docket: M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4090163 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: original award of alimony and reinstated the original award. On remand, the court entered an order providing that the Wife's interest in Husband's 401K Plan would be increased in the amount of the adjustments ordered by this court, to be made pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which was also entered by the court; the court awarded Wife a judgment for the difference in the alimony awarded in the original decree and that paid by Husband pursuant to the amended decree. In this appeal, Wife challenges the trial court's compliance with this court's instructions. We find that the orders entered by the court comply with the instructions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: al property, reversed those portions of the order, and adjusted the division accordingly; we remanded the case for the court to determine whether, in equalizing the division of the marital estate \"it is appropriate to further adjust the parties' shares of the retirement accounts or to make some other award.\" Barnes, 2014 WL 1413931 at *17. As respects the award of alimony, we vacated the portion of an amended order which had modified and reduced the original award from alimony in futuro of $6,000 per month to rehabilitative alimony of $4,300 per month for a period of four years; we reinstated the original award. We affirmed the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: o a separate account under such plan on behalf of [Wife].\" Significantly, section 10 of the Order provided that \"[t]he court reserves jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter to amend this order to establish and maintain its status as a QDRO under ERISA and the Code.\" In her brief on appeal, Wife does not explain how the QDRO entered June 4, 2015 fails to comply with the mandate; upon our review, we hold that it does comply, and her argument to the contrary is not well taken. In any event, to the extent there may be some deficiency in the implementation of the order, the trial court has retained jurisdic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8fe1cd19-b322-447f-ba91-1d93d981bfb0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4090163-4090163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4090163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –","extracted_reporter_citation":"975 S.W.2d 303","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ents we made and the nature of the marital assets; we also vacated the trial court's amended order modifying the original award of alimony and reinstated the original award. On remand, the court entered an order providing that the Wife's interest in Husband's 401K Plan would be increased in the amount of the adjustments ordered by this court, to be made pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which was also entered by the court; the court awarded Wife a judgment for the difference in the alimony awarded in the original decree and that paid by Husband pursuant to the amended decree. In this appeal, Wife cha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4091129 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Wood. Extracted reporter citation: 104 N.E.2d 877. Docket: 2015-0430. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4091129 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of divorce, the trial court awarded one-half of one of the respondent's retirement accounts to the petitioner. It ordered the petitioner to \"designate a qualifying retirement account in which to transfer her share of the\" account and stated that \"[s]hould a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] be necessary to effectuate this division, it shall be prepared by [the petitioner] at her expense.\" The respondent moved for reconsideration asserting, as relevant here, that the transfer of one-half of the retirement account \"creates significant detriment to [him] from both a security and tax standpoint for which the Court heard no evidence because neithe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: for annulment of the marriage; (2) denying his petition; (3) finding certain testimony proffered by the petitioner credible without explanation; (4) equally dividing the marital estate; and (5) ordering him to transfer to the petitioner one-half of a certain retirement account without affording him the opportunity to address possible adverse tax consequences of that transfer. We affirm. I. Background The following facts are drawn from the trial court's order, or are otherwise found in the record. The parties met in 1981 and were married in 1986 in New York. Shortly after marrying, the respondent moved into the petitioner's New"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the court to consider, such as the length of marriage, the age and health of the parties, the contribution of each party during the marriage which contributed to the growth or diminution in value of property owned by either or both parties, the expectation of pension or retirement rights, whether property is separately held, and tax consequences. See RSA 458:16-a, II(a)-(b), (f), (i)-(j). \"Under the statute, the court need not consider all factors or give them equal weight.\" In the Matter of Costa & Costa, 156 N.H. at 327 (quotation omitted). Here, the record demonstrates that the court considered the following statut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"237bb810-59f5-4e5a-8a28-b3587b988d97","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091129-4091129","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2015-0430","extracted_reporter_citation":"104 N.E.2d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e, the trial court awarded one-half of one of the respondent's retirement accounts to the petitioner. It ordered the petitioner to \"designate a qualifying retirement account in which to transfer her share of the\" account and stated that \"[s]hould a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] be necessary to effectuate this division, it shall be prepared by [the petitioner] at her expense.\" The respondent moved for reconsideration asserting, as relevant here, that the transfer of one-half of the retirement account \"creates significant detriment to [him] from both a security and tax standpoint for which the Court heard no evidence because neithe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"543f6b95-03c1-43ef-a3d5-6ae698773cf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4091636 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4091636 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"543f6b95-03c1-43ef-a3d5-6ae698773cf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"543f6b95-03c1-43ef-a3d5-6ae698773cf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4091636-4091636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4091636","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d permanent Order of this Court relative to the rights and obligations of the residential and non-residential parent.\" She emphasizes that she had discussed obtaining a modification with her attorney and \"was in the process of seeking a modification of the domestic relations order\" when she left the state with the child. Villamor-Goubeaux seems to equate requesting a modification – or simply having discussions with her lawyer about doing so – with actually obtaining a modification from the court. {¶ 33} But a request for a modification does not authorize the movant to take the actions for which permission is sought. Villamor-Go"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4092488 Extracted case name: SESSIONS v. SESSIONS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4092488 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005). ¶10 Husband argues that because the formula set forth in the DRO requires use of Husband's three highest years of income before the filing of the petition of dissolution, pension counsel incorrectly calculated the retirement benefit by using the Husband's benefit amount payable at his twenty-year service date. Contrary to Husband's argument, however, the plain language of the DRO requires use of the \"amount payable to [Husband] based upon 20 years' total service.\" In accordance with the DRO, pension counsel used an estimate of the actual benefit that would be payable to Husband based o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. OROZCO, Judge: ¶1 Vitale Nicolo Sessions (Husband) appeals from the superior court's order enforcing a domestic relations order (DRO) and directing use of the formula set forth therein to calculate his former wife's share of pension benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Robyn Marie Sessions (Wife) married on April 30, 1988. Husband, then a police detective with the City of Mesa, began participating in the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) on October 17, 1993. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolutio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: NDUM DECISION Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. OROZCO, Judge: ¶1 Vitale Nicolo Sessions (Husband) appeals from the superior court's order enforcing a domestic relations order (DRO) and directing use of the formula set forth therein to calculate his former wife's share of pension benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Robyn Marie Sessions (Wife) married on April 30, 1988. Husband, then a police detective with the City of Mesa, began participating in the Public Safety Pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fac64f6c-15ac-4981-945a-3396f8595eba","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4092488-4092488","title":"CourtListener opinion 4092488","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ] PSPRS start date was October 17, 1993. Therefore, the numerator should reflect 108.5 months (from October 17, 1993, through November 1, 2002, is 9 years and one-half month, or 108.5 months), and the denominator is 240 months. Therefore, one-half of the community property interest in the PSPRS benefit is 22.6%. (108.5/240 x .5 = 22.6%)[.] The direct payment is calculated by multiplying $3,654.43 by 22.6% (or $822.90). Then the . . . offset amount of $219.14 is subtracted, leaving a direct payment amount to [Wife] of $606.76. ¶7 Husband objected to the calculation and instead offered to pay Wife $275 per month. Wife re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b160285-2a86-4be9-b037-8ee1217079e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316","title":"CourtListener opinion 4093316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4093316 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4093316 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b160285-2a86-4be9-b037-8ee1217079e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316","title":"CourtListener opinion 4093316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b160285-2a86-4be9-b037-8ee1217079e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316","title":"CourtListener opinion 4093316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (Darren H. Fairlie of counsel), for respondent. __________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered January 2, 2015 in Sullivan County, which, upon reargument, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order. In October 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation that was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The stipulation provided, among other things, that \\the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b160285-2a86-4be9-b037-8ee1217079e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4093316-4093316","title":"CourtListener opinion 4093316","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Fairlie of counsel), for respondent. __________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered January 2, 2015 in Sullivan County, which, upon reargument, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order. In October 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation that was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The stipulation provided, among other things, that \\the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4095608 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. U.S. Extracted reporter citation: 378 N.E.2d 162. Docket: 27011 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095608 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o obtain a portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"Amended QDRO\") that she filed with the domestic relations court on February 10, 2015. The Amended QDRO was file-stamped by the clerk, but it contained several irregularities in its form, including that parts of the document were hand-written and it was not signed by the parties or by counsel. {¶ 4} Curtis had no knowledge of the Amended QDRO at the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: judgment of the domestic relations court will be affirmed. {¶ 2} The parties, Curtis White (\"Curtis\") and Vondelere White (\"Vondelere\"), were divorced in 1979. Pursuant to their divorce decree, Vondelere was not awarded any interest or rights in Curtis's retirement benefits with General Motors. Ever since their divorce, Vondelere has made numerous attempts to obtain a portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he magistrate ordered Vondelere to pay Curtis the cost of the action and $350 in attorney fees. The magistrate noted that the $350 in attorney fees was for Curtis having to move to vacate the Amended QDRO and to address issues with the administrator of his pension plan in order to restore retirement funds that were diverted due to the Amended QDRO being filed. {¶ 9} While Curtis presented billing statements showing that he incurred $4,040.50 in attorney fees allegedly as a result of Vondelere's frivolous conduct, the magistrate chose to award $350 because Curtis did not provide any expert testimony regarding the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7662fd2-020d-4848-b4d0-fb832d83a539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095608-4095608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27011 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"378 N.E.2d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"Amended QDRO\") that she filed with the domestic relations court on February 10, 2015. The Amended QDRO was file-stamped by the clerk, but it contained several irregularities in its form, including that parts of the document were hand-written and it was not signed by the parties or by counsel. {¶ 4} Curtis had no knowledge of the Amended QDRO at the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82f584e5-dd53-41e3-9082-c629620a0ffe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095712","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1815 EDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4095712 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1815 EDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095712 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82f584e5-dd53-41e3-9082-c629620a0ffe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095712","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1815 EDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82f584e5-dd53-41e3-9082-c629620a0ffe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095712","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1815 EDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: settlement agreement (\"PSA\"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19040-16 entered into the PSA following their separation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82f584e5-dd53-41e3-9082-c629620a0ffe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095712","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1815 EDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cember 15, 2014 final order granting Appellee Alan Kepler's second petition to enforce a property settlement agreement (\"PSA\"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice speciall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82f584e5-dd53-41e3-9082-c629620a0ffe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095712-4095712","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095712","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1815 EDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ition to enforce a property settlement agreement (\"PSA\"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19040-16 entered into the PSA following their sep"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cc0dae1-9753-46dc-879c-90bfc1e0897c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095930","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"328250 Shiawassee Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4095930 Extracted case name: In re Estate of THOMAS P. HARKEMA. PAMELA HARKEMA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 328250 Shiawassee Probate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095930 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cc0dae1-9753-46dc-879c-90bfc1e0897c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095930","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"328250 Shiawassee Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cc0dae1-9753-46dc-879c-90bfc1e0897c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095930","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"328250 Shiawassee Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ppeals as of right the probate court's order denying her request to require the personal representative of her deceased former spouse, Thomas P. Harkema, to enter into an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) that would allow Pamela to receive the survivor pension benefits. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pamela and Thomas married in 1986 and divorced in 2009. At their pro confesso divorce hearing on March 16, 2009, Pamela and Thomas indicated that they had reached a settlement agreement, which they had incorporated into a proposed judgment of divorce and EDRO. The parties executed their EDRO on April"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cc0dae1-9753-46dc-879c-90bfc1e0897c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095930","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"328250 Shiawassee Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: NE KRAUSE, P.J., and O'CONNELL and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Pamela Harkema appeals as of right the probate court's order denying her request to require the personal representative of her deceased former spouse, Thomas P. Harkema, to enter into an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) that would allow Pamela to receive the survivor pension benefits. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pamela and Thomas married in 1986 and divorced in 2009. At their pro confesso divorce hearing on March 16, 2009, Pamela and Thomas indicated that they had reached a settlement agreement, which they had incorporated into a proposed judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cc0dae1-9753-46dc-879c-90bfc1e0897c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4095930-4095930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4095930","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"328250 Shiawassee Probate","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: bmission. Pamela claimed survivorship rights in Thomas's pension from his estate, and the personal representative denied the claim. Pamela subsequently petitioned the probate court to order the personal representative to sign a new EDRO that would grant her survivor benefits in Thomas's pension, arguing that she was entitled to a marital share of Thomas's pension under the judgment of divorce. The personal representative objected, arguing that the EDRO that Pamela and Thomas executed expressly provided that Pamela would receive no pension benefits in the event that Thomas predeceased her. The probate court determined that it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4101239 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Sanders. Extracted reporter citation: 60 F.3d 346. Docket: 1-14-3681. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4101239 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994,\" and that: \"[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as of August 31, 1994, said benefits to be divided pursuant to the same formula in assessing or ordering Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO), to wit: 50% of the accrued benefits for the period November 1, 1968 to August 31, 1994. Payment of said benefit shall commence when the pension goes into pay status.\" ¶4 In 2012, William retired from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after 43 years of employment. William's pension is held by the Civil Service Retirement System and admin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed a request for the marital portion of the annuity payments\" with the OPM. This request included a copy of the July 1996 court order. On September 6, 2012, OPM responded in a letter stating that \"[b]y court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 50% of 322 months of service during the marriage divided by 532 months of Federal service or 30.26% of your spouse's retirement benefit. The marital share times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $8936 provides for a $2,704.03 monthly payment to you.\" Beginning October 1, 2012, OPM issued Stella monthly distributions of $2,704.03. ¶6 Willi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of Hunt, 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1979) (Hunt formula). We affirm. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 On August 31, 1994, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving William and Stella Sanders's 26-year marriage. The judgment reserved the issue of the division of William's pension. On July 11, 1996, after a trial before Judge James G. Donegan, a supplemental judgment for dissolution was entered, finding the \"pension of the Respondent through his employment with the United States Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994,\" and that: \"[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dae758bc-b568-4389-b21c-7366aefe3e47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101239-4101239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101239","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-14-3681","extracted_reporter_citation":"60 F.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: are of his pension benefits that she has not received, and (4) an award of attorney fees. ¶9 In response, William argued that his retirement plan is a federal government plan exempt from the previsions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2006)) and managed by the OPM; according to OPM regulations Stella was required to follow procedures to apply for pension benefits; OPM's September 2012 letter miscalculated Stella's benefits based on 322 months of service during marriage where the marriage lasted only 303 months; therefore, OPM properly recalculated Stella's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76cc521-f712-481f-b722-349acd978cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101831","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4101831 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4101831 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76cc521-f712-481f-b722-349acd978cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101831","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f76cc521-f712-481f-b722-349acd978cdc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4101831-4101831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4101831","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: these actions, the court found that Vorpe was attempting to protect her children – not just explain the missed practices – when she gave the coach (a school official) the false impression that the CPO was still in effect. However, the court noted that the domestic relations order for counseling and for no contact with the children at extracurricular events was still in effect at the time of Vorpe's action. The trial court found that no specific court order had been violated when Vorpe altered the document and that, \"while [Vorpe] should not have altered the documents, this does not rise to the level of contempt.\" {¶ 19} Althou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46e71b6e-c1d9-460a-af8c-d58098664f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2190 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"530 A.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4102200 Extracted reporter citation: 530 A.2d 871. Docket: 2190 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4102200 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46e71b6e-c1d9-460a-af8c-d58098664f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2190 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"530 A.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46e71b6e-c1d9-460a-af8c-d58098664f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2190 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"530 A.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: asset in the marital estate. The master determined that there were insufficient assets to permit an \"in-kind\" distribution to offset Wife's claim on the pension, and therefore recommended that the pension be split by a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), providing that Wife would receive 47.4%2 of Husband's monthly payment from the pension. Husband subsequently filed thirty exceptions to the master's report, while Wife filed five. After receiving argument from the parties, the trial court issued an order adopting the master's report in whole, with minor exceptions regarding certain payments made by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46e71b6e-c1d9-460a-af8c-d58098664f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2190 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"530 A.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e no relief, and therefore affirm. Husband and Wife had been married for 24 years when Wife filed for divorce in 2013. On July 15, 2014, the first equitable distribution hearing was held before a master. Only one witness testified at the hearing, Wife's pension valuation expert. That master subsequently recused himself from the case. After the appointment of a substitute master, a second hearing was held on November 10, 2014. At this hearing, Wife presented her own testimony, as well as further testimony from her pension expert and the testimony of an expert in home valuation. The next hearing date was set f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46e71b6e-c1d9-460a-af8c-d58098664f9b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102200-4102200","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102200","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2190 MDA 2015","extracted_reporter_citation":"530 A.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: dment, acted as the final divorce J-A22026-16 decree.1 After careful review, we conclude that Husband is due no relief, and therefore affirm. Husband and Wife had been married for 24 years when Wife filed for divorce in 2013. On July 15, 2014, the first equitable distribution hearing was held before a master. Only one witness testified at the hearing, Wife's pension valuation expert. That master subsequently recused himself from the case. After the appointment of a substitute master, a second hearing was held on November 10, 2014. At this hearing, Wife presented her own testimony, as well as further testimony from her pen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4102745 Extracted reporter citation: 866 N.W.2d 74. Docket: A-15-1234. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4102745 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vailable to Shane to satisfy the property equalization payment is his retirement account[.]\" Id. at 23. Shane requests that we remand this issue to the district court \"with instructions to the trial court to order Shane to pay his obligation through a -4- [qualified domestic relations order.]\" Id. We consider first the characterization of Shane's retirement account as a marital asset, followed by Shane's request for an equalization of the marital estate through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). (a) Marital asset After the parties had filed their appellate briefs with this court, our Supreme Court released an opinion specifically a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d in August 1994, and almost 21 years later the district court for Red Willow County entered a decree dissolving that marriage. Shane appeals the district court's determinations related to certain child support worksheet deductions, alimony, his firefighter's retirement plan, a marital equalization judgment, and the court's failure to make an adjustment to the marital estate due to Debra's unilateral decision to claim both their children on her 2014 tax return. We affirm, but remand with directions to determine alternatives related to the marital equalization judgment. II. BACKGROUND During their marriage, Shane and Debra had"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cy exemption and for tax credit purposes commencing with his 2015 tax return. Both parties filed a motion for new trial on July 8, 2015. On November 30, the district court entered an order denying Shane's motion (related to the treatment of his firefighter's pension as a marital asset), but granted Debra's motion (related to child support and alimony). The subsequent order amended the decree by (1) making adjustments to Shane's retirement deductions which resulted in Shane's child support obligation increasing from $1,133 to $1,204 per month and (2) striking the previous award of no alimony and replacing it with an ali"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ec16007b-5f46-4053-9778-79f248fd7985","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4102745-4102745","title":"CourtListener opinion 4102745","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-15-1234","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 N.W.2d 74","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): t had deducted $333.75 for Social Security from Shane's income when calculating child support when Shane did not pay into Social Security, and the court deducted $215.32 for retirement when the evidence showed that Shane made elective deferrals of $4,185 to a 401K plan voluntarily, and that these deferrals were not mandatory. With regard to the alimony issue, the motion mentions the district court's decision to award no alimony when this was a 21-year marriage and that there was a \"substantial disparity in the earning capacity of the parties.\" The district court sustained Debra's request for relief on both matters a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68fef7c-e74e-4ddc-9823-e1c8928e4a83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995","title":"CourtListener opinion 4103995","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4103995 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4103995 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68fef7c-e74e-4ddc-9823-e1c8928e4a83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995","title":"CourtListener opinion 4103995","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68fef7c-e74e-4ddc-9823-e1c8928e4a83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995","title":"CourtListener opinion 4103995","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion Settlement Agreement (MSA) in which they agreed: the Former Husband would make two lump sum payments 1 of $17,500 each to the Former Wife for retroactive retirement and child support; the IDO would be replaced with a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to which the Former Wife would receive 36% of the Former Husband's military retirement and disability payments; and the Former Husband's alimony obligation was \"terminated effective immediately.\" Shortly after the MSA was executed, the Former Husband filed a motion to set it aside. In June 2012, the trial court denied the motion to set aside"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68fef7c-e74e-4ddc-9823-e1c8928e4a83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4103995-4103995","title":"CourtListener opinion 4103995","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ies entered into a Mediation Settlement Agreement (MSA) in which they agreed: the Former Husband would make two lump sum payments 1 of $17,500 each to the Former Wife for retroactive retirement and child support; the IDO would be replaced with a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to which the Former Wife would receive 36% of the Former Husband's military retirement and disability payments; and the Former Husband's alimony obligation was \"terminated effective immediately.\" Shortly after the MSA was executed, the Former Husband filed a motion to set it aside. In June 2012, the trial court denied the motion to set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4106144 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of O'Malley. Docket: 1-15-1118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4106144 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ssolution of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans valu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: al court did here. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164. ¶ 43 In Hall, the petitioner and respondent's judgment for dissolution of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of this [a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: [respondent's] retirement plans valued as of the date of the entry of this [judgment for dissolution of marriage].' \" Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. After the division of assets, the petitioner noticed that she had not received benefits from two additional pension plans belonging to the respondent and filed a petition to modify or reform the dissolution judgment, alleging that the pension plans had been omitted from the MSA due to a mutual mistake of fact. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. The trial court found that it did not have jurisdiction to modify or reform the judgment because the petitioner did not first es"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c19b80c-1e62-4b1a-9e10-082282d4e9f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106144-4106144","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106144","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-15-1118","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that \" ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans valu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4106617 Extracted reporter citation: 568 N.W.2d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4106617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eed that husband's interest in the pension should be increased by the amount he was awarded in wife's 401(k) account, because wife's 401(k) no longer contained funds. Second, the May 2010 order directed husband's former counsel to submit an appropriate 3 qualified domestic relations order. The original dissolution decree required the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order before dividing any retirement benefits. The company administering wife's pension account, however, was purchased by another company soon after the dissolution; as a result, the division of the pension account was placed on hold. Neither the parties nor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ned funds. Second, the May 2010 order directed husband's former counsel to submit an appropriate 3 qualified domestic relations order. The original dissolution decree required the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order before dividing any retirement benefits. The company administering wife's pension account, however, was purchased by another company soon after the dissolution; as a result, the division of the pension account was placed on hold. Neither the parties nor husband's former counsel filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order until 2015, as discussed below. Procedural History In May 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ns to increase spousal maintenance, to order delinquent spousal maintenance payments, and to increase respondent-wife's life insurance policy as security for the spousal maintenance. Husband 1 also appeals from the district court's orders dividing wife's pension account. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband's motions and dividing the pension, we affirm. FACTS This appeal arises from the parties' ongoing dispute relating to appellant Paul Gardner's (husband) permanent spousal maintenance award against his former wife, respondent Margaret Gardner (wife). The district cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5959a7e7-63c8-4ff3-9daf-5fd5d28bb711","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4106617-4106617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4106617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 N.W.2d 705","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e dissolution decree awarded husband permanent spousal maintenance and ordered wife to secure the spousal maintenance with a life insurance policy, but did not state the required amount of the policy. The decree also awarded husband fifty percent of wife's 401(k) and pension accounts. The decree has been modified by several subsequent orders, some of which are pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal. The facts and subsequent orders relevant to this appeal may be grouped into three categories. Spousal Maintenance A January 2015 order increased wife's monthly maintenance obligation from $3,250 to $3,350."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1313cc7e-0943-4cc6-a775-8421cfc9e31b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 68","extracted_reporter_citation":"117 A.3d 38","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4107139 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. JEROME P. JOHNSON. Extracted reporter citation: 117 A.3d 38. Docket: AG No. 68. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4107139 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1313cc7e-0943-4cc6-a775-8421cfc9e31b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 68","extracted_reporter_citation":"117 A.3d 38","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1313cc7e-0943-4cc6-a775-8421cfc9e31b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 68","extracted_reporter_citation":"117 A.3d 38","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: se. In Kovacic, id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674, a client retained the lawyer to represent her in a divorce action. A trial court entered a judgment of divorce, which required the client to get certain marital property appraised and submit to the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which would award the client more than $13,000. See id. at 235-36, 884 A.2d at 674-75. The lawyer did not provide the client with the judgment of divorce until over a month after the trial court entered it. See id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674. On numerous occasions throughout a five-month period after the trial court entered the judgment of divorce, the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1313cc7e-0943-4cc6-a775-8421cfc9e31b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107139-4107139","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107139","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 68","extracted_reporter_citation":"117 A.3d 38","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: acic, id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674, a client retained the lawyer to represent her in a divorce action. A trial court entered a judgment of divorce, which required the client to get certain marital property appraised and submit to the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which would award the client more than $13,000. See id. at 235-36, 884 A.2d at 674-75. The lawyer did not provide the client with the judgment of divorce until over a month after the trial court entered it. See id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674. On numerous occasions throughout a five-month period after the trial court entered the judgment of divorce, the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22ae099d-c9c1-44fd-aca7-3d6d6aa0b355","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4107536 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4107536 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22ae099d-c9c1-44fd-aca7-3d6d6aa0b355","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22ae099d-c9c1-44fd-aca7-3d6d6aa0b355","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d bankruptcy petitions with multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second case, \"The Amer Dissolution,\" Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, \"The Loury Collection Matter,\" he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the Loury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22ae099d-c9c1-44fd-aca7-3d6d6aa0b355","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4107536-4107536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4107536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cy petitions with multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second case, \"The Amer Dissolution,\" Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, \"The Loury Collection Matter,\" he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the Loury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a116f76-73e1-46d7-a05c-3883f22b2753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109227","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160159","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4109227 Docket: 20160159. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4109227 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a116f76-73e1-46d7-a05c-3883f22b2753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109227","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160159","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a116f76-73e1-46d7-a05c-3883f22b2753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109227","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160159","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ts and mineral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a116f76-73e1-46d7-a05c-3883f22b2753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109227","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160159","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n of the parties' property, debts and mineral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a116f76-73e1-46d7-a05c-3883f22b2753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109227-4109227","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109227","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160159","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2adcf8b0-b373-4351-a34c-0fb41c6ace74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1842 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4109718 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1842 EDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4109718 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2adcf8b0-b373-4351-a34c-0fb41c6ace74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1842 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2adcf8b0-b373-4351-a34c-0fb41c6ace74","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4109718-4109718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4109718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1842 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hia Court of Common Pleas-Family Court Division- Juvenile Branch pursuant to section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351, and evaluated for the purpose of determining or reviewing the permanency plan of the children. In subsequent hearings, the [domestic relations orders] reflect the [c]ourt's review and disposition as a result of evidence presented, addressing, and primarily with, the goal of finalizing the permanency plan. On April 5, 2016 and May 11, 2016, a Termination of Parental Rights hearing for [Mother] was held in this matter. On May 11, 2016, the [c]ourt found by clear and convincing evidence that [Moth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4110439 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cella. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4110439 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 5, 2002, Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce, and the divorce decree was filed on November 3, 2004. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on November 1, 2004. Pursuant thereto, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on November 28, 2012, which provided that Wife would receive a marital share of Husband's Pension Fund. Specifically, under the QDRO Appellant would receive a 50% marital portion of the Pension Fund for the years of marriage from June 29, 1996, to June 5, 2002. See QDRO, filed 11/28/12, at ¶ 8. Husband retired on October 24, 2012, and passed away on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 22, 2016 Appellant Christine M. Lyons, N/K/A Christine M. Brace (hereinafter \"Wife\") appeals pro se the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on April 18, 2016, granting the preliminary objections of the City of Scranton Police Pension Fund (the \"Pension Fund\"). After a careful review, we affirm, albeit for reasons different from those expressed by the trial court.1 ____________________________________________ 1 It is well-settled that an appellate court may affirm the trial court's decision if there is any basis on the record to support that decision even if the (Footnote Continued"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: __________________________________________ 4 In this regard, paragraph eleven of the QDRO states the following: \"Death of Participant: In the event that the Participant dies either prior to or after the establishment of a separate account in the name of the Alternate Payee, the Participant's death shall in no way affect Alternate Payee's right to the portion of her benefits set forth in paragraph No. 8.\" 5 We note that the Commonwealth Court considered a similar claim which arose from an ex-spouse's filing of Motion for Declaratory Judgment against the City of Wilkes-Barre Police Pension Fund wherein she requested a declarat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ad27c66-5815-4cf2-b65d-20f0d9e0714e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4110439-4110439","title":"CourtListener opinion 4110439","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on June 29, 1996. On June 5, 2002, Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce, and the divorce decree was filed on November 3, 2004. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on November 1, 2004. Pursuant thereto, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on November 28, 2012, which provided that Wife would receive a marital share of Husband's Pension Fund. Specifically, under the QDRO Appellant would receive a 50% marital portion of the Pension Fund for the years of marriage from June 29, 1996, to June 5, 2002. See QDRO, filed 11/28/12, at ¶ 8. Husband retired on October 24, 2012, and passed aw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"503a8c36-2026-4d19-946a-8962753d35d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-15-0774 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4112301 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoerr. Extracted reporter citation: 806 F.3d 414. Docket: 2-15-0774 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4112301 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"503a8c36-2026-4d19-946a-8962753d35d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-15-0774 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"503a8c36-2026-4d19-946a-8962753d35d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-15-0774 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ng the statement; otherwise the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"503a8c36-2026-4d19-946a-8962753d35d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-15-0774 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy his then-unpaid fees of $37,000 and provide an additiona"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"503a8c36-2026-4d19-946a-8962753d35d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112301-4112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112301","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-15-0774 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tement; otherwise the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eced44-f407-47bd-be60-5ad896924352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4112469 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4112469 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eced44-f407-47bd-be60-5ad896924352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eced44-f407-47bd-be60-5ad896924352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , Anna Parise, which, he maintained, demonstrated appellant continued, albeit passively, to represent him into the Spring of 2009. {¶10} In particular, on April 13, 2009, Ms. Parise sent appellee an e-mail advising him that, per the final divorce order, a QDRO must be prepared which must be signed by appellant. That same day, appellee e-mailed his assistant directing her to send Ms. Parise's message and other relevant documentation to appellant. Appellee also asked that appellant confirm he received the communication. On April 20, 2009, appellee e-mailed his assistant, stating he had called appellant regardin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eced44-f407-47bd-be60-5ad896924352","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4112469-4112469","title":"CourtListener opinion 4112469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lant stated he needed appellee out of his life, emphasizing \"I don't want any correspondence from him, ever.\" Appellant further requested Attorney Pavlidis' assistance in, what he viewed, would be a foreseeable legal problem relating to distribution of his pension under the trial court's division of property order (\"DOPO\"). {¶9} In his memorandum in opposition, appellant argued appellee was still his attorney until the date of his withdrawal, June 11, 2009. He also attached various e- mails between appellee and an associate who was also apparently involved with appellant's case, Anna Parise, which, he maintaine"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53375d25-a299-47cc-b730-c1c340e4f8fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113395","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4113395 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4113395 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53375d25-a299-47cc-b730-c1c340e4f8fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113395","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53375d25-a299-47cc-b730-c1c340e4f8fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113395","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bankruptcy petitions With multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause Why he should not be held in contempt f`or missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second»case, \"The Amer Dissolution,\" Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, \"The Loury Collection Matter,\" he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the boury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"53375d25-a299-47cc-b730-c1c340e4f8fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113395-4113395","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113395","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y petitions With multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause Why he should not be held in contempt f`or missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second»case, \"The Amer Dissolution,\" Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, \"The Loury Collection Matter,\" he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the boury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7165caa-853d-4f08-bc7a-44b1fff02df6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113557","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4113557 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. R ALLEN HUGHES. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4113557 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7165caa-853d-4f08-bc7a-44b1fff02df6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113557","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7165caa-853d-4f08-bc7a-44b1fff02df6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113557","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: raised by the Children are restated as follows: a. Whether the holding in Hillman v. Maretta controls the outcome of this case in which the beneficiary is alleged to have committed constructive fraud in acquiring life insurance proceeds and when a state domestic relations order, \"based on specific judicial recognition of particular needs\" has directed a different disposition. b. Whether the grant of summary judgment can be upheld when the chancery court failed to consider the Children‟s constructive fraud claim and admissible evidence supporting that claim. c. Whether the federal preemption doctrine shields fraud committ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7165caa-853d-4f08-bc7a-44b1fff02df6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4113557-4113557","title":"CourtListener opinion 4113557","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: at issue in Yiatchos. Federal law and federal regulations bestow upon the service member an absolute right to designate the policy beneficiary. That right is personal to the member alone. It is not a shared asset subject to the interests of another, as is community property.\" Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 59-60 (1981). In a footnote, the Court stated that Yiachtos and Free: \"were concerned with a particular type of fraudulent behavior: attempts „to divest the wife of any interest in her own property.‟ . . . . In this case, [serviceman] misdirected property over which he had exclusive control. In doing so, of course, he deprived the ["}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4114096 Docket: 16CA0029-M Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4114096 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: URNAL ENTRY Dated: January 9, 2017 HENSAL, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Ronald Nelson, appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering him to assign certain pension benefits to his ex-wife by way of a qualified domestic relations order. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} After over 25 years of marriage, Ronald Nelson (\"Husband\") and Patricia Nelson (\"Wife\") divorced in 2003. Throughout the duration of their marriage, Husband worked as a pilot for U.S. Airways and participated in the U.S. Airways, Inc. Pilot Pension Defined Benefit Plan (\"Pension Plan\"). Prior to Husband and Wife's divorce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: pellant CASE No. 01 DR 0714 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 9, 2017 HENSAL, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Ronald Nelson, appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering him to assign certain pension benefits to his ex-wife by way of a qualified domestic relations order. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} After over 25 years of marriage, Ronald Nelson (\"Husband\") and Patricia Nelson (\"Wife\") divorced in 2003. Throughout the duration of their marriage, Husband worked as a pilot for U.S. Airways and participated in the U.S. Airways, Inc. Pilot Pension Def"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: r than U.S. Airways), the Pension Plan had been \"restored\" as contemplated under the settlement agreement. {¶5} Husband, on the other hand, argued that PBGC's takeover of the Pension Plan did not result in it being \"restored\" as specifically defined under ERISA, which would require the Pension Plan to return to its original status with U.S. Airways, as opposed to being an insurance benefit administered by PBGC. In support of his position, Husband presented testimony from an ERISA expert who testified regarding the process of a pension plan being \"restored\" as technically defined under ERISA. 3 {¶6} After a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f0d943-6188-490a-aac9-2514eeb9950c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114096-4114096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16CA0029-M Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lexandria Division, In the Matter of US Airways Group, Inc. Case No. 02-83984-91(SSM) (Jointly Administered) or by the Congress of the United States, the Husband as a participant in said fund, hereinafter referred to as \"Plan,\" shall assign to Wife, as an alternate payee, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50% of his interest in the Plan as of September 1, 2002. (Emphasis added.) {¶3} Following U.S. Airways' bankruptcy, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\"), a federal corporation that insured Husband's benefits under the Pension Plan, took over the Pension Plan. As a result of the Pension Pla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4114523 Docket: 33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4114523 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Chvatal represented Cynthia Veneziano in the dissolution action and negotiated the terms of the parties' property division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\\Alternate Payee\\\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ice action against Patricia Chvatal, arising out of Ms. Chvatal's negotiation of the division of marital assets in Ms. Veneziano's divorce. Ms. Veneziano's legal experts testified that Ms. Chvatal's approach to the negotiated division of Mr. Veneziano's pension-a major marital asset-undervalued Ms. Veneziano's interest and fell below the standard of care. While the trial court agreed with Ms. Veneziano that her evidence presented genuine issues of fact on most elements of her malpractice claim, it found her evidence lacking on the required element of proximately- caused harm. Ms. Veneziano assigns error"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: roperty division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\\Alternate Payee\\\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a34ac59e-d665-4e1e-b5a5-05e755ec0ee5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4114523-4114523","title":"CourtListener opinion 4114523","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: epresented Cynthia Veneziano in the dissolution action and negotiated the terms of the parties' property division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\\Alternate Payee\\\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4115105 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115105 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ler Group, et al. Page 3 December 14, 1994. On January 18, 1995, a Plan representative called Williams and informed him that the Judgment of Divorce lacked the clerical information required by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)4 to enable the Plan to qualify it as a \"qualified domestic relations order\" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and, therefore, the Judgment of Divorce could not override ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1).5 Consequently, the Plan denied Plaintiff's request for benefits. At that time, the Plan also sent a letter conveying the same information, and attached a sample qualified domestic-relations order spelling"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e to Henry. It further stated that Henry was forbidden from choosing a pension payment option that would deprive Plaintiff of these benefits.2 Henry worked for the Chrysler Corporation for 334 months, from June 3, 1965 to January 29, 1992, and began receiving retirement benefits under the Chrysler – UAW Pension Plan (the Plan)3 on April 1, 1994, in the form of a \"Lifetime Annuity Without Surviving Spouse\" option. Thus, Henry violated the Judgment of Divorce by selecting an option that did not provide Plaintiff with the benefits awarded to her. Attempting to override Henry's choice of benefits under the Plan, Plaintiff's first at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: xth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0007p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ARDELLA PATTERSON, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │ > No. 16-1365 v. │ │ │ CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, nka FCA US LLC; │ CHRYSLER LLC UAW PENSION PLAN, nka FCA US │ LLC-UAW Pension Plan, │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cv-10563—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge. Argued: October 18, 2016 Decided and Filed: January 11, 2017 Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. _________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c084d09-8c29-42f0-95a9-bea959e3a006","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115105-4115105","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115105","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rms, Michigan, for Appellants. Jack M. Schultz, JACK M. SCHULTZ, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellee. 1 No. 16-1365 Patterson v. Chrysler Group, et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. In this ERISA action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132,1 Defendants-Appellants, Chrysler Group, LLC, et al. (Defendants), appeal the judgment of the district court ordering them to pay Plaintiff-Appellee, Ardella Patterson (Plaintiff), pension and surviving spousal benefits. We reverse, finding Plaintiff's claim barred by the statute of limitations. I. BACKGROUND"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4115614 Extracted reporter citation: 40 N.E.3d 971. Docket: 32A04-1604-CT-806 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115614 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be deducted from Husband's gross disposable retirement pay prior to calculation and payment of Wife's retirement distribution. 18. Wife's entitlement to a distribution of Husband's military retired pay shall be documented by a duly executed and ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband and Wife shall each execute any necessary documents to effectuate this provision. (App. Vol. II (hereinafter \"App.\") at 30-1) (emphasis in original). [3] Husband retired from the military in May 2005. Upon his retirement, he paid Wife $325.00 per month out of his retirement pay. In July 2014, Wife sent the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ct payment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Services by virtue of 10 U.S.C. section 1408(d)(2) inasmuch as the parties [sic] marriage has continued for more than ten (10) years during which Husband has accrued active military service creditable for retirement benefits. Further, as the wife of an active duty military serviceman married for at least ten (10) years, Wife shall be entitled to all statutory benefits afforded her. 15. During the period from the date of marriage to the date of separation (March 31, 1985 to March 27, 1998) Husband accumulated 156 months of active Federal service for retirement; 1 One"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ere married on March 31, 1985, and divorced on August 7, 1998. 1 For all but approximately two months of the parties' marriage, Husband served in the United States Army. The dissolution court (hereinafter, \"Dissolution Court\") divided Husband's military pension benefits in the Dissolution Decree and ordered: 13. This Court has jurisdiction over the distribution and division of Husband's military pension benefits pursuant to I.C [sic] 31-9- 2-42. 14. The Wife is entitled to direct payment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Services by virtue of 10 U.S.C. section 1408(d)(2) inasmuch as the parties [si"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62181404-692c-47b4-afab-45679f32880f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115614-4115614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32A04-1604-CT-806 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"40 N.E.3d 971","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed from Husband's gross disposable retirement pay prior to calculation and payment of Wife's retirement distribution. 18. Wife's entitlement to a distribution of Husband's military retired pay shall be documented by a duly executed and ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband and Wife shall each execute any necessary documents to effectuate this provision. (App. Vol. II (hereinafter \"App.\") at 30-1) (emphasis in original). [3] Husband retired from the military in May 2005. Upon his retirement, he paid Wife $325.00 per month out of his retirement pay. In July 2014, Wife sent the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4115913 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dalton. Extracted reporter citation: 348 S.W.3d 290. Docket: 12-15-00203-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115913 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: AW CAROL DALTON, APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Bart Dalton appeals from post-divorce enforcement orders rendered in favor of his ex- wife Carol Dalton. In six issues, Bart asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the qualified domestic relations order, the trial court impermissibly altered the terms of the divorce decree, his retirement assets are exempt from seizure, the amount awarded is unsupported by the record, the trial court erred in refusing to vacate an earlier wage withholding order, and the trial court violated Bart's due process rights. Because the evidence does not support the amount awarded"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ers. On April 15, 2015, the court granted Carol's petition for a QDRO and denied Bart's motion to terminate the wage withholding order. On July 10, 2015, a hearing was held on Bart's renewed motion to vacate the withholding order and his motion to release his retirement account funds. That day, the court found Bart in contempt for failure to comply with the terms of the divorce decree and rendered a QDRO assigning to Carol a portion of Bart's retirement benefits for the alimony arrearages and for attorney's fees. Additionally, the trial court dismissed Bart's motion to vacate the withholding order. Bart timely filed a notice of ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a person may contract to support his spouse and children, and that obligation, to the extent it exceeds his legal duty, is a debt. Ex parte Hall, 854 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1993). Texas Property Code Section 42.0021 provides that a person's right to assets in pension plans and retirement accounts are, to an extent, exempt from seizure for the satisfaction of debts. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a comprehensive federal system regulating employee benefit plans to protect contractually defined benefits. Firestone 6 Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56356a8e-85ca-4c01-8e24-7f2db3afdec8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4115913-4115913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4115913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-15-00203-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"348 S.W.3d 290","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e Section 42.0021 provides that a person's right to assets in pension plans and retirement accounts are, to an extent, exempt from seizure for the satisfaction of debts. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a comprehensive federal system regulating employee benefit plans to protect contractually defined benefits. Firestone 6 Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 113, 109 S. Ct. 948, 956, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1989). ERISA includes expansive preemption provisions, which are intended to ensure that the regulation of employee benefit plans be exclusively a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0166349b-7450-449d-b989-1e71523749a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779","title":"CourtListener opinion 4116779","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 was not submitted to the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4116779 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2 was not submitted to the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4116779 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0166349b-7450-449d-b989-1e71523749a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779","title":"CourtListener opinion 4116779","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 was not submitted to the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0166349b-7450-449d-b989-1e71523749a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4116779-4116779","title":"CourtListener opinion 4116779","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 was not submitted to the bankruptcy","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ellant's Brief relies solely upon alleged procedural errors. There is no discussion of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and no contention that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to rule that the offset was a violation of the stay even though it arose out of domestic relations orders.59 Because Carlton has not identified the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine as an issue on appeal and has not briefed the question, this Court will not consider whether the bankruptcy court erred in applying the doctrine.60 In contrast to the rule that an appellate court may affirm on any basis shown by the record, there is no rule of appellate procedure that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4118369 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRIAN K. SMITH AND BONNIE J. SMITH Upon the Petition of BRIAN K. SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 16-0597. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4118369 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: es' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009) (discussing finality of decrees, property division, and qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs)). Second, to implement the court's division of retirement benefits, a QDRO is entered that directs the plan administrator to make specified payments to the non-employee ex-spouse. Id. Thus, \"a QDRO is characterized properly as a procedural device required by federal law and entered to effectuate the property division made in the dissolution decree.\" Id. Rockwell Collins Retirement Savings Plan—401(k). Brian's 401(k) was wort"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 9 balances into a new 529 plan for the benefit of this grandchild. 5 Brian filed a dissolution petition on December 11, 2013, and trial commenced on August 20, 2015. The parties presented financial information to the court, including the value of various retirement accounts and the marital home. Brian proposed Bonnie \"should receive zero of the equity in the marital residence\" because he had made all the mortgage payments and because the parties \"have always had separate accounts.\" He also asked to be awarded his health savings account, his defined-benefit plan, and his 401(k)—valued at over $1 million. Brian agreed Bonn"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s \"existing legal principles.\" See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1101(3). 7 Brian's 401(k) has a marital value of $922,255, and Bonnie will keep her $73,211 in marital retirement assets, which makes the difference in the parties' marital retirement 10 Defined-Benefit Pension. In Iowa, pension benefits are marital property subject to an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have recognized two methods of dividing pension benefits: the present value payable immediately or a percentage payable when the benefits become matured. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19364a95-5a3a-4269-96e6-6b61a945f85a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4118369-4118369","title":"CourtListener opinion 4118369","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0597","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): should receive zero of the equity in the marital residence\" because he had made all the mortgage payments and because the parties \"have always had separate accounts.\" He also asked to be awarded his health savings account, his defined-benefit plan, and his 401(k)—valued at over $1 million. Brian agreed Bonnie should retain her $73,000 in retirement accounts, and he urged the court to hold each party responsible for their own debts—Brian ($32,238) and Bonnie ($79,426). In contrast, Bonnie asked the court to award her a marital portion of both Brian's 401(k) and his defined-benefit plan by the entry of qualified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4124406 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAMIE TEKIPPE n. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 16-1297. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4124406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OSEPH TEKIPPE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge. Joseph TeKippe appeals from an order approving the language of a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP, Charles City, for appellant. Erik W. Fern of Putnam, Fern & Thompson Law Office, P.L.L.C., Decorah, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 DOYLE, Judge. \"This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to sp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 881 (Iowa 2012). Unfortunately, in reaching the property settlement they stipulated to be part of the decree dissolving their marriage, the parties here failed to specifically address whether the alternate payee of a retirement plan could designate a successor alternate payee. This appeal is the result. Joseph and Jamie TeKippe1 were married in 1994, and Jamie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation outlining the division of their property and debts, the award of spousal support, and their responsibilities re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: me court warned in In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 881 (Iowa 2012). Unfortunately, in reaching the property settlement they stipulated to be part of the decree dissolving their marriage, the parties here failed to specifically address whether the alternate payee of a retirement plan could designate a successor alternate payee. This appeal is the result. Joseph and Jamie TeKippe1 were married in 1994, and Jamie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation outlining the division of their property and debts, the award of spousal support, and thei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee4272a-eeff-4db7-b8d4-6df958155dd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4124406-4124406","title":"CourtListener opinion 4124406","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1297","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: PPE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge. Joseph TeKippe appeals from an order approving the language of a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP, Charles City, for appellant. Erik W. Fern of Putnam, Fern & Thompson Law Office, P.L.L.C., Decorah, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 DOYLE, Judge. \"This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to sp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4126102 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 329377 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4126102 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to plainti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sterbeck relied on Erway v Erway, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 27, 2007 (Docket No. 265194), wherein this Court amended the parties' judgment of divorce to reflect the QDRO, which awarded 50% of the defendant's early retirement benefits to the plaintiff although the original judgment awarded only general retirement benefits and did not specifically award early retirement benefits. The trial court in Erway clarified that it had intended to award the plaintiff an interest in both general and early retirement benefits, and thus amendment of the judgment was appropriate under MCR 2.612(A)(1)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS This case arises from an underlying dispute between plaintiff and Vickey Presley regarding entitlement to survivor benefits in William Kirk's pension. Plaintiff and William were divorced in August 1994 pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9606362a-582d-463a-a8bb-c500e8b61c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126102-4126102","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126102","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4126576 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 329377 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4126576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to plainti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sterbeck relied on Erway v Erway, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 27, 2007 (Docket No. 265194), wherein this Court amended the parties' judgment of divorce to reflect the QDRO, which awarded 50% of the defendant's early retirement benefits to the plaintiff although the original judgment awarded only general retirement benefits and did not specifically award early retirement benefits. The trial court in Erway clarified that it had intended to award the plaintiff an interest in both general and early retirement benefits, and thus amendment of the judgment was appropriate under MCR 2.612(A)(1)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS This case arises from an underlying dispute between plaintiff and Vickey Presley regarding entitlement to survivor benefits in William Kirk's pension. Plaintiff and William were divorced in August 1994 pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab50204-6067-4df2-94a1-1fd288d85ade","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4126576-4126576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4126576","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329377 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"710b297b-e48f-40b4-833e-84df81a05e52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151610","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15AP-1071 for this","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4151610 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15AP-1071 for this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4151610 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"710b297b-e48f-40b4-833e-84df81a05e52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151610","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15AP-1071 for this","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"710b297b-e48f-40b4-833e-84df81a05e52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151610","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15AP-1071 for this","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ant. The decree identified the parties' separate property and provided for division of the marital property. Among the provisions governing the division of property, the decree ordered appellant to transfer one-half of the balance of his Chase Roth individual retirement account and $374,404 from his Chase retirement savings plan to appellee. The decree provided that a qualified domestic relations order was to be prepared to facilitate the transfer of the retirement savings account funds. The decree also ordered appellant to pay appellee $15,000 toward her attorney fees. {¶ 4} Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 15, 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"710b297b-e48f-40b4-833e-84df81a05e52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151610-4151610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151610","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15AP-1071 for this","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ovisions governing the division of property, the decree ordered appellant to transfer one-half of the balance of his Chase Roth individual retirement account and $374,404 from his Chase retirement savings plan to appellee. The decree provided that a qualified domestic relations order was to be prepared to facilitate the transfer of the retirement savings account funds. The decree also ordered appellant to pay appellee $15,000 toward her attorney fees. {¶ 4} Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 15, 2015, arguing that the judgment issuing the divorce decree was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law. Appellee fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4151729 Extracted case name: P.A. v. T.A. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4151729 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cording to the family court order, petitioner did not challenge the apportionment or value of the 401(k). In addition, the exhibit attached to the order states that the marital balance in respondent's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and \"QDRO [\"qualified domestic relations order\"] amount to balance.\" The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to the participant under a plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n, . . .\" 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(A)(i). As this Court has recognized, the requirements of a QDRO are defined by federal law, and the plan administrator follows the directions of the QDRO, taking the actions necessary to secure the other party's interest in the pension or retirement. Chenault v. Chenault, 224 W. Va. 141, 145-46, 680 S.E.2d 386, 390-91 (2009). In the instant case, the family court order clearly contemplates the entry of a subsequent order so that further accounting will be done contemporaneous with the entry of the QDRO, including the updated financial figures. In addition, the family court order specifica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Court also recognized that a post-separation increase in the value of an investment account 2 classified as marital property was also marital property. Id. According to the family court order, petitioner did not challenge the apportionment or value of the 401(k). In addition, the exhibit attached to the order states that the marital balance in respondent's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and \"QDRO [\"qualified domestic relations order\"] amount to balance.\" The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa2ce226-7270-4286-aa89-f0c1592cf2c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4151729-4151729","title":"CourtListener opinion 4151729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: nt's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and \"QDRO [\"qualified domestic relations order\"] amount to balance.\" The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order \"which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to the participant under a plan, . . .\" 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(A)(i). As this Court has recognized, the requirements of a QDRO are defined by federal law, and the plan administrator follows the directions of the QDRO, taking the actions ne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4153347 Extracted reporter citation: 22 A.3d 727. Docket: of months Matthews was a participant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153347 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: working there from 1973 to 2013. Second, Matthews married his ex-wife in 1973 and divorced in 1993, meaning they were together for about half of his tenure at DuPont. Third, Matthews' divorce decree, entered by the Delaware Family Court in 1995, included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that required DuPont to pay a specified portion of Matthews' pension benefit directly to his ex-wife. And fourth, DuPont amended its Plan at the end of 2007, reducing benefits to pensioners for post-2007 work by two-thirds. 2 II Although Matthews' pension benefit determination involved numerous byzantine calculations, this appeal turns on on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ct Court's summary judgment in favor of his former employer, E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, in a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The District Court held that the decision of DuPont's Plan Administrator to revise Matthews' pension-benefit calculation was entitled to deference under ERISA. Matthews argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Administrator's decision de novo because it was interpreting a state court order instead of the Plan. We agree with the parties that the standard of review dictates the result in this appeal and because the District Court should ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, in a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The District Court held that the decision of DuPont's Plan Administrator to revise Matthews' pension-benefit calculation was entitled to deference under ERISA. Matthews argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Administrator's decision de novo because it was interpreting a state court order instead of the Plan. We agree with the parties that the standard of review dictates the result in this appeal and because the District Court should have applied de novo review, we will reverse. I Four und"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8b1db41-b126-4a55-b423-5909a7edc99c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153347-4153347","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153347","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months Matthews was a participant","extracted_reporter_citation":"22 A.3d 727","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ere from 1973 to 2013. Second, Matthews married his ex-wife in 1973 and divorced in 1993, meaning they were together for about half of his tenure at DuPont. Third, Matthews' divorce decree, entered by the Delaware Family Court in 1995, included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that required DuPont to pay a specified portion of Matthews' pension benefit directly to his ex-wife. And fourth, DuPont amended its Plan at the end of 2007, reducing benefits to pensioners for post-2007 work by two-thirds. 2 II Although Matthews' pension benefit determination involved numerous byzantine calculations, this appeal turns on on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a57e93-5837-44e7-8cf1-19652e539840","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"654 N.E.2d 1254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4153742 Extracted reporter citation: 654 N.E.2d 1254. Docket: OT-16-017 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153742 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a57e93-5837-44e7-8cf1-19652e539840","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"654 N.E.2d 1254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a57e93-5837-44e7-8cf1-19652e539840","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"654 N.E.2d 1254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y more going forward. [Appellee-Defendant] has completed her education, and yet makes $29,500 at most a year. Their respective ages and health do not appear to be a factor. There is great disparity in their retirement benefits. Even after splitting by QDRO, Plaintiff is young and skilled enough to replenish and grow his retirement benefits before he will need them. Defendant does not make enough to have disposable income to invest in her 401(k) at work after expenses. This is a 10-year marriage, and all of the growth in income-earning ability of Plaintiff occurred while the Defendant and he were mar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a57e93-5837-44e7-8cf1-19652e539840","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"654 N.E.2d 1254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) The income of the parties, from all sources * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; 6. (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a57e93-5837-44e7-8cf1-19652e539840","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153742-4153742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153742","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"654 N.E.2d 1254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): disparity in their retirement benefits. Even after splitting by QDRO, Plaintiff is young and skilled enough to replenish and grow his retirement benefits before he will need them. Defendant does not make enough to have disposable income to invest in her 401(k) at work after expenses. This is a 10-year marriage, and all of the growth in income-earning ability of Plaintiff occurred while the Defendant and he were married. Additionally, the minor child is only 7 years old, and the custodial parent 8. will be called upon to be available for all of the activities that go along with being the house-parent o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4153750 Extracted case name: DDP-AJW v. DIRECTORS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153750 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: I alleges a claim against all defendants for violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. On this count, Williams' prayer for relief \"[a]gainst all defendants for the loss to [her] pension benefits because of the Willis [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")]\" amounts to a request for equitable relief 4 from the effect of the Willis QDRO. In other words, Williams effectively seeks relief from the allegedly erroneous state court judgment in the interpleader action, which reaffirmed the validity of the Willis QDRO. Therefore, her § 510 action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel, 341 F.3d at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: D STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRY WILLIAMS-ILUNGA, No. 15-55599 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05415-DDP-AJW v. DIRECTORS/TRUSTEES OF MEMORANDUM* PRODUCER-WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA PENSION PLAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 7, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. We affirm the dismissal of all three counts in Terry Williams-Ilunga's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: to be cured: a subsequent federal claim is completely barred if it amounts to \"a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.\" Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. Assuming that Count II is premised on a benefits dispute under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), the claim was properly dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker-Feldman bars federal jurisdiction where a plaintiff \"complain[s] of a legal injury caused by a state court judgment, based on an allegedly erroneous legal ruling, in a case in which the federal plaintiff was one of the litigants.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ea450ea1-8a90-4dde-9a4d-90a338070df2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4153750-4153750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4153750","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nal services. 3. Count III alleges a claim against all defendants for violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. On this count, Williams' prayer for relief \"[a]gainst all defendants for the loss to [her] pension benefits because of the Willis [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")]\" amounts to a request for equitable relief 4 from the effect of the Willis QDRO. In other words, Williams effectively seeks relief from the allegedly erroneous state court judgment in the interpleader action, which reaffirmed the validity of the Willis QDRO. Therefore, her § 510 action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel, 341"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4154006 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4154006 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (2008 Domestic Relations Order). The order provided that Potrament—as an \"alternate payee\" under the plan—was entitled to receive a separate, half share of Dullea's monthly plan benefits for the rest of her life. See id. The PBGC deemed the order to be a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (or \"QDRO\") under ERISA, and subsequently began paying benefits to Potrament in accordance with its terms. A.R. 244–45. Four years later, in 2012, Dullea presented the PBGC with a second domestic relations order that had been recently issued by a different judge from the same Minnesota court. A.R. 222 (2012 Domestic Relations Order). The new order sp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN P. DULLEA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-00147 (CRC) PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION John Dullea, a participant in an ERISA pension plan administered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (\"PBGC\"), petitioned the agency to change the form of benefits that his former spouse had been receiving under the plan. The PBGC denied his request, citing agency policy prohibi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN P. DULLEA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-00147 (CRC) PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION John Dullea, a participant in an ERISA pension plan administered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (\"PBGC\"), petitioned the agency to change the form of benefits that his former spouse had been receiving under the plan. The PBGC denied his request, citing agency policy prohibiting such changes after benefits payments have begun. Dullea sued, and both sides now move for summary jud"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1517e1bf-9a67-4cf7-a11f-fc79460c6a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4154006-4154006","title":"CourtListener opinion 4154006","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: sumed control of the plan, Dullea's former wife, Ann Marie Potrament, provided the agency a domestic relations order issued by a court in the couple's home state of Minnesota. A.R. 8 (2008 Domestic Relations Order). The order provided that Potrament—as an \"alternate payee\" under the plan—was entitled to receive a separate, half share of Dullea's monthly plan benefits for the rest of her life. See id. The PBGC deemed the order to be a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (or \"QDRO\") under ERISA, and subsequently began paying benefits to Potrament in accordance with its terms. A.R. 244–45. Four years later, in 2012, Dull"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4156241 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bowen. Extracted reporter citation: 217 P.3d 756. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4156241 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ilitary service, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the order to state a fixed amount or a percentage of Ocasio-Santiago's retirement pay that should be paid to Rockw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: $2,457.04 monthly, beginning on June 1, 2014 and ending when Ocasio- Santiago retired from military service, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rded attorney fees to Rockwood. The commissioner's order stated that no substantial change in 2 48066-2-II circumstances occurred regarding spousal maintenance. The commissioner also entered an order clarifying the division of Ocasio-Santiago's military pension. Ocasio-Santiago filed a motion for revision. He argued that there was a substantial change in circumstances, and that Rockwood should not have been awarded fees. In addition, he argued that the portion of the clarifying order regarding the amount of his retirement pay to be received by Rockwood should not be 47 percent. A superior court judge grante"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ccba8b3-f046-4ace-bad5-ae3d18c85ffb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156241-4156241","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156241","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"217 P.3d 756","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rvice, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the order to state a fixed amount or a percentage of Ocasio-Santiago's retirement pay that should be paid to Rockw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"167ba73d-e746-458c-95d4-aab5ca215d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4156856 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4156856 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"167ba73d-e746-458c-95d4-aab5ca215d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"167ba73d-e746-458c-95d4-aab5ca215d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for an alleged clerical error. He also appeals the judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse, Francene Vincent (\"Wife\"). For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Husband's appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO, and vacate the award of attorneys' fees. BACKGROUND ¶2 After Wife filed a peti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"167ba73d-e746-458c-95d4-aab5ca215d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: th Husband and Wife, which the court signed the following month. ¶3 In December 2015, more than eleven years later, Husband filed a motion to set aside the QDRO, asserting it contained a \"clerical error\" that would result in Wife receiving half of his entire pension upon his retirement, rather than the amount accrued as of the date Wife filed the petition for dissolution. Husband also argued the QDRO was void because it did not include the decree's limitation that Wife would receive half of his retirement accrued as of the date she filed the petition for dissolution. ¶4 In response, among other things, Wife argued the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"167ba73d-e746-458c-95d4-aab5ca215d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4156856-4156856","title":"CourtListener opinion 4156856","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for an alleged clerical error. He also appeals the judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse, Francene Vincent (\"Wife\"). For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Husband's appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO, and vacate the award of attorneys' fees. BACKGROUND ¶2 After Wife filed a peti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5dd7c65-315f-465e-b46b-4927bccf0210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901","title":"CourtListener opinion 4160901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"518 U.S. 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4160901 Extracted reporter citation: 518 U.S. 81. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4160901 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5dd7c65-315f-465e-b46b-4927bccf0210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901","title":"CourtListener opinion 4160901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"518 U.S. 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5dd7c65-315f-465e-b46b-4927bccf0210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901","title":"CourtListener opinion 4160901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"518 U.S. 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, abused its discretion in making the award. See Shooltz, 27 Va. App. at 271, 498 S.E.2d at 441. In its equitable distribution determination, the court awarded wife \"the marital share of [husband's] military pension, which shall be divided through a COAP/QDRO drafted by [wife's] counsel.\" However, Code § 20-107.3(G)(1) provides: The court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension . . . which constitutes marital property and whether payable in a lump sum or over a period of time. . . . However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such benefits are payable. No su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5dd7c65-315f-465e-b46b-4927bccf0210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901","title":"CourtListener opinion 4160901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"518 U.S. 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 00 a year. She asked the court to impute income to husband for calculation of spousal and child support guidelines. She also requested that the court award her eighteen months of husband's GI Bill educational benefits and a percentage of husband's military pension. At the conclusion of wife's evidence, husband's counsel made a motion to strike because she did not present testimony from a corroborating witness. Wife advised the court that the witness was present and that her failure to present the testimony was inadvertent. She asked for leave to reopen the evidence, and the court granted the motion over husband'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5dd7c65-315f-465e-b46b-4927bccf0210","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4160901-4160901","title":"CourtListener opinion 4160901","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"518 U.S. 81","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , PC, on briefs), for appellant. Tara Steinnerd (Steinnerd Law PLLC, on brief), for appellee. Shawn Garrett (\"husband\") appeals a final decree of divorce, and assigns error to the court's rulings regarding his motion for a continuance, determination of equitable distribution, child and spousal support awards, and motion to reopen the evidence. Andria Garrett (\"wife\") assigns cross-error to the court's entry of a divorce a mensa et thoro and the court's determination of support arrearages. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the trial court. BACKGROUND The parties w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24de2d77-3229-4e94-8ab1-91dcbb4d1e5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"940 S.W.2d 594","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4161343 Extracted reporter citation: 940 S.W.2d 594. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4161343 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24de2d77-3229-4e94-8ab1-91dcbb4d1e5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"940 S.W.2d 594","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24de2d77-3229-4e94-8ab1-91dcbb4d1e5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161343-4161343","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"940 S.W.2d 594","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed effective September 1, 2016, prior to the date of the divorce decree, the affidavit of indigence, the contest, and the hearing on indigence. 2 App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting divorce court's limited continuing jurisdiction over QDRO and enforcement matters, but vacating sanctions order that did not relate to these matters and that was entered after plenary power expired); Warfield Elec. of Tex., Inc. v. Harry Hines Prop. Venture, 871 S.W.2d 273, 275 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no writ); see Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex. 2000); cf. Arndt v. Farris"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07e88089-f1cf-42ff-b2e6-2a80ee0eccff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161888","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4161888 Extracted case name: K.H. v. A.S. Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4161888 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07e88089-f1cf-42ff-b2e6-2a80ee0eccff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161888","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07e88089-f1cf-42ff-b2e6-2a80ee0eccff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161888","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: decree of Janice and plaintiff-appellee Michael Mayer was entered on April 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO's\") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07e88089-f1cf-42ff-b2e6-2a80ee0eccff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161888","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO's\") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final divorce decree, it was nonetheless untimely. Janic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07e88089-f1cf-42ff-b2e6-2a80ee0eccff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4161888-4161888","title":"CourtListener opinion 4161888","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Janice and plaintiff-appellee Michael Mayer was entered on April 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO's\") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4162524 Extracted case name: TERRI L. RICHMAN v. SCOTT A. WALLMAN. Extracted reporter citation: 992 A.2d 1137. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4162524 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to enter alternative orders to effectuate the intention herein.'' The agreement stipulated that ‘‘Attorney Eliza- beth McMahon shall prepare the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: separation agreement into the dissolution judgment. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to enter alternative orders to effectuate the intention"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): between the parties and incorporated the terms of the separation agreement into the dissolution judgment. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f058ab67-bff1-43fb-83dc-3c4a386f2660","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4162524-4162524","title":"CourtListener opinion 4162524","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"992 A.2d 1137","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ks omitted.) Schorsch v. Schorsch, 53 Conn. App. 378, 385, 731 A.2d 330 (1999). The court's authority to distribute the personal property of the parties must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage. ‘‘Therefore, a property division order gen- erally cannot be modified by the trial court after the dissolution decree is entered, subject only to being opened within four months from the date the judgment is rendered under General Statutes § 52-212a.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ‘‘Although the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, a court, after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4163249 Extracted reporter citation: 660 N.W.2d 586. Docket: 20160072. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4163249 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: March 14, 2016, Chad Lizakowski filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] \"A party mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ogether.\" Krueger , 2008 ND 90, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 671. The district court awarded Chad Lizakowski a $100,000.00 cash equalization payment as part of the property distribution. Chad Lizakowski was awarded minimal debt in comparison to Laura Lizakowski, a retirement account valued at over $40,000.00, and monthly rehabilitative support of $1,000.00 a month for twenty-four months. Chad Lizakowski will also be receiving $1,572.00 a month in child support. [¶22] Chad Lizakowski points to several cases in which large awards of spousal support have been upheld when the obligor spouse was found to have a significantly higher ear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): smiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] \"A party moving to dismiss an appeal must clearly es"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d56e28b7-9952-4a4a-9745-60efdf7d6f13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163249-4163249","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163249","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20160072","extracted_reporter_citation":"660 N.W.2d 586","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2016, Chad Lizakowski filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] \"A party mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8be3c5c1-0d57-4609-94aa-bacc8e9a9829","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"405 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4163843 Extracted reporter citation: 405 S.W.3d 470. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4163843 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8be3c5c1-0d57-4609-94aa-bacc8e9a9829","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"405 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8be3c5c1-0d57-4609-94aa-bacc8e9a9829","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4163843-4163843","title":"CourtListener opinion 4163843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"405 S.W.3d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: failure to keep the client reasonably informed) in his representation of Linda Curry in a divorce case. During'Stansbury's representation of Ms. Curry, an agreement was filed on July 6, 2012 requiring Stansbury to prepare a Qualifled Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Stansbury failed to do so, although he informed Ms. Curry that he had. Additionally, Stansbury failed to communicate to Ms. Curry that he had been suspended from the practice of law on August 29, 2013. Stansbury failed to provide Ms. Curry with a copy of her file after his representation ended due to his suspension. SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) states: \"Upon termi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4164314 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16–1441. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4164314 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: xpenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive substantial retirement assets through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with a value in excess of $100,000. In addition, the court ordered that Gary's interest in a defined benefits plan be distributed between the parties according to the formula established in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996). The district court awarded Linda rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 per month for three yea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Duffy was concerned that the language of the document could be construed to release Linda's award of retirement assets in the divorce decree. As a result, Duffy modified the document by inserting the handwritten phrase \"except pending QDRO concerning pet. retirement accounts per decree\" in three places on the \"Settlement and Release of Claims.\" Linda initialed each handwritten change, and she signed the document before a notary. Also on October 10, Linda cashed Gary's check for $27,000. 8 On October 11, 2012, Duffy dismissed the contempt complaint with prejudice. On October 22, Sporer dismissed his appeal in the divorc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n note was \"a fraud.\" The court cited the tone, substance, and circumstances of the note. The court emphasized that it would be absurd for Linda to give up her retirement benefit of more than $100,000, plus an unknown value of a share of a defined benefit pension, in exchange for $3000. Further, the court noted that it would be extremely unlikely that Linda would surrender the retirement award in settlement of the contempt action against Gary. Further, the district court reasoned that there was no plausible motivation for Linda to accept \"such a ridiculous agreement.\" According to the court, there was no prosp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa7e89f0-34ec-4001-a342-6ef7650d52b0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164314-4164314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164314","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): istrict court noted that dissipation of assets is a proper consideration. The district court found that Gary had unreasonably dissipated marital assets in contemplation of the dissolution. The court concluded Gary had unreasonably spent 4 $139,000 from a 401(k) account and $30,000 from the parties' home equity line of credit. The district court stated it would adjust the distribution of the remaining marital property as if these expenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04ba4813-b7dd-4165-a482-b236f56a746f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164539","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4164539 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4164539 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04ba4813-b7dd-4165-a482-b236f56a746f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164539","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04ba4813-b7dd-4165-a482-b236f56a746f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164539","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 25, 2016. The order, among other things, granted defendant's motion and adjudged that defendant is entitled to the entry of a Domestic Relations Order awarding her the right to receive $833 per month from plaintiff's New York State Teachers Retirement System pension benefit commencing as of the date of his retirement. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this postdi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04ba4813-b7dd-4165-a482-b236f56a746f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4164539-4164539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4164539","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: N OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered May 25, 2016. The order, among other things, granted defendant's motion and adjudged that defendant is entitled to the entry of a Domestic Relations Order awarding her the right to receive $833 per month from plaintiff's New York State Teachers Retirement System pension benefit commencing as of the date of his retirement. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37da8708-9ac1-4e85-989d-00af82627d7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895","title":"CourtListener opinion 4169895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-16-0184 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4169895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson. Docket: 2-16-0184 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4169895 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37da8708-9ac1-4e85-989d-00af82627d7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895","title":"CourtListener opinion 4169895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-16-0184 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37da8708-9ac1-4e85-989d-00af82627d7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895","title":"CourtListener opinion 4169895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-16-0184 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: they satisfied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37da8708-9ac1-4e85-989d-00af82627d7d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4169895-4169895","title":"CourtListener opinion 4169895","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-16-0184 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4170474 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4170474 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. CARNEY, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION In 2006 a divorcing couple agreed to divide the husband's retirement benefit based on its present value and implemented the division with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2014, after the husband received an updated benefit projection that calculated the wife's share of the benefit using his salary at retirement instead of at divorce, he sought to modify the QDRO. He asked the court to require that her benefit be based upon the same salary data used in the 2006 calculation. The superior court denied the motion. Because"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 3% of the net estate to Marjorie to help her establish adequate housing for the couple's minor children. They agreed that this division \"fairly allocate[d] the economic effect of their divorce\" as required by AS 25.24.160(a)(4). Among the assets divided were retirement accounts belonging to both, including their State of Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement accounts. David was still working for the State and had accrued a little more than 20 years of PERS service credit when the parties separated. The parties agreed on a value for David's PERS account based on its present value as calculated by a third par"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ng Hansen v. Hansen, 119 P.3d 1005, 1015 (Alaska 2005)) (\"Determining the [retirement health] benefits' marital portion requires calculation of the ‘coverture fraction.' \"). Accord Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993, 1003 (Alaska 2002) (\"The marital share of a pension (continued...) -8- 7173 David's proposed definition of \"marital portion\" would limit a former spouse's retirement benefits to the salary level earned during the marriage, but he has cited no cases supporting this additional meaning.22 The QDRO's listing of the marriage and separation dates provides no reason to reevaluate the meaning of \"marital porti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c79b721-b4ed-4b09-be31-ba7c89484c01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170474-4170474","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170474","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: retain other property acquired after their 31 December 2004 permanent separation. That property is agreed to be non-marital and neither party is making a claim to it.\" The QDRO submitted by the parties said, in relevant part, that \"Marjorie W. Thomson, as the Alternate Payee, shall receive from the Plan, from the final monthly retirement benefit which otherwise would be payable to the Member, 46.96% of the total monthly benefit which is based on credited service accrued from August 7, 1982 to December 31, 2004.\" (Emphasis in original.) The court signed this QDRO along with the divorce decree and settlement on August 9, 2006. B"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4170937 Extracted case name: LYNNE E. HARRISON v. EDWIN B. HARRISON. Extracted reporter citation: 944 S.W.2d 379. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4170937 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and 60% to Wife. The court specifically noted that \"[t]he parties stipulated that $82,335.00 represents both the funds she invested and growth that occurred during the marriage as a marital asset subject to equitable division.\" The court also directed that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") be prepared by the parties, dividing the marital portion of Wife's employer- provided pension 60% to her and 40% to Husband. With respect to the liability owed to the Internal Revenue Service (\"IRS\"), the trial court found that Husband failed to file tax returns on behalf of the parties for the years 2011 through 2013 in a timely fashion. Having"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: his corporation owed him some $300,000.00 which he used to pay down promissory notes owed to him instead of receiving a salary\" but \"provided no documentation to support his claim.\" Additionally, Husband received a lump sum of $40,514.00 from his pension and retirement plan in 2012, which he claimed to have used for investments to benefit the parties. The court found that Husband was unable to provide documentation demonstrating where this money was deposited or for what purpose it was used. Husband provided documentation of two trust accounts that existed at the time of the marriage, one with a balance of $45,598.00 at the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: R3-CV This divorce case involves a marriage of eight years' duration. Because the parties had reached an agreement with regard to the division of certain marital assets, the trial court was requested during a bench trial to divide the parties' retirement and pension accounts, or the marital portion thereof, and other limited marital assets and liabilities. The trial court considered the relevant statutory factors and apportioned the remaining assets and liabilities 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband. The trial court also awarded the husband $1,000.00 in attorney's fees and $180.42 in court reporter fees. The husban"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"84c91640-38ca-4adc-aa18-3f2644b31c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4170937-4170937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4170937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"944 S.W.2d 379","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): sband.\" Moreover, the trial court determined that each party maintained the ability to continue to accumulate future assets and income if he or she chose to do so. The court also found that the parties jointly decided to increase Wife's contributions to her 401(k) during the marriage; however, the growth of the marital estate was marginal due to Husband's reported stock losses of nearly $160,000.00. Considering all of the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4- 121, the trial court concluded that the marital assets and liabilities should be divided 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. In furtherance of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4171169 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MISTI and TIM JANES. MISTI JANES. Extracted reporter citation: 176 Cal.App.4th 1438. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4171169 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of appellant Tim Janes (Husband). In 2014, Wife's $113,392 remained in the 1 retirement account. Wife sought the $113,392 and the gains or losses resulting from that money. The family court granted Wife's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) reflecting Wife was entitled to $113,392 and the resulting gains or losses dating back to the date of separation. Husband contends (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the 2010 judgment of dissolution by awarding the gains and losses to Wife; and (2) the family court erred by dating the gains and losses back to the date of separation, rat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ondent. In a 2010 marital settlement agreement, which was attached to a judgment of dissolution, respondent Misti Janes (Wife) was awarded $113,392 from the retirement account of appellant Tim Janes (Husband). In 2014, Wife's $113,392 remained in the 1 retirement account. Wife sought the $113,392 and the gains or losses resulting from that money. The family court granted Wife's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) reflecting Wife was entitled to $113,392 and the resulting gains or losses dating back to the date of separation. Husband contends (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the 2010"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e instant case is \"on all fours\" with In re Marriage of Thorne and Raccina (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 492 (Thorne). In Thorne, the wife and the husband entered into a marital settlement agreement, in which the wife accepted 16 percent of the husband's military pension. The wife sought to have the dissolution judgment set aside when she learned courts apply a time rule to divide a pension. (Id. at pp. 495-497.) The wife asserted she was \"‘entitled to her one-half community share of [the husband's] disposable retirement pay.'\" (Id. at p. 497.) The trial court modified the judgment to comply with the time rule. (Thorne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e699d2-b5e0-41b2-803d-a876dd5bb9ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4171169-4171169","title":"CourtListener opinion 4171169","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 Cal.App.4th 1438","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): settlement agreement (the agreement) attached to the judgment, reflected \"Petitioner, [Wife], is awarded and Respondent agrees to transfer, assign, and set over to Petitioner, the following community property assets . . . . [¶] h. $113,392 from [Husband's] 401k retirement account through Sentinell Benefits.\" The agreement also provided, \"Respondent, [Husband], is awarded and Petitioner agrees to transfer, assign, and set over to Respondent, the following community property assets . . . . [¶] l. Balance of the community interest and Respondent's separate property interest in the 401k retirement account throug"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4172199 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Docket: OT-16-029 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4172199 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f modifying the entry to indicate the characterizations of spousal support and divisions of property as stated in this decision. Further, we order the trial court to modify its judgment entry to reflect that the Prudential pension plan is subject to a 12. qualified domestic relations order, and that such an order shall be entered with respect to the plan. We further order the trial court to retain jurisdiction as to the spousal support award. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal. See App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the spousal support award. 2. {¶ 7} The record, in pertinent part, reflects as follows: Appellee's counsel: Last, but not least, Your Honor, is the issue of spousal support. I will say we got a little creative with this because of several issues and retirement plans and everything else, but until the house is sold, the defendant [appellee] will pay to plaintiff [appellant] the amount of $2,000 per month. We also talked about the sum that plaintiff will pay direct—will be paid directly from defendant, the pension plan amount, and, again, that changes in December 2016. We will not be utilizing a Q.D.R.O and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ity and unable to work as a result of a heart condition. Appellee financially supported her during the marriage. {¶ 5} Appellee is a financial advisor and insurance agent, and the record reflects his income comes from three sources, including a Prudential pension plan (\"the plan\"). Appellant testified the plan was started in 2010. The monthly distribution from the plan was $2,490, until December 2016, at which point the amount would change to $1,694. Appellee testified that he made the plan \"a hundred percent spousal benefit,\" so that appellant would receive payment in the event of his death. {¶ 6} Prior to tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"57a59e60-d530-411f-badb-e202a9608d3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172199-4172199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-16-029 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"554 N.E.2d 83","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g the entry to indicate the characterizations of spousal support and divisions of property as stated in this decision. Further, we order the trial court to modify its judgment entry to reflect that the Prudential pension plan is subject to a 12. qualified domestic relations order, and that such an order shall be entered with respect to the plan. We further order the trial court to retain jurisdiction as to the spousal support award. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal. See App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4172617 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4172617 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: th Avenue, Suite 150, Chardon, OH 44024-1079 (For Defendant-Appellee). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley's, proposed qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\") filed May 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: be credited toward appellant's obligations as set forth herein. {¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs awarding her (1) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan; (2) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Shearson Benefit; and (3) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Account-Based Benefit. Appellant objected on November 3, 2015. 2 {¶6} On November 24, 2015, the trial court approved the QDRO awarding appellee 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan and ordered that it should be executed. The court was unable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): h September 26, 2014, according to Geauga County Child Support Enforcement Division; (3) $9,167.92 in prior unpaid attorney's fees; (4) $1,302 in attorney's fees for the Motion to Show Cause filed June 10, 2013; and (5) 100% of the balance of the Citigroup 401(k) account, half of which was previously awarded to appellee. The remaining half was to be credited toward appellant's obligations as set forth herein. {¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs awarding her (1) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan; (2) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0218dc-45bb-423d-a0df-961cf3e8659c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4172617-4172617","title":"CourtListener opinion 4172617","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Suite 150, Chardon, OH 44024-1079 (For Defendant-Appellee). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley's, proposed qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\") filed May 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4174529 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 116 A.3d 865. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4174529 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n was valued as of April 21, 2001, at $32,698.82. The parties were divorced on December 19, 2001. They executed a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff's pension benefits would be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The separa- tion agreement further required the plaintiff to pay peri- odic alimony of $130 per week for five years or until the defendant began cohabitating with another individual. On January 3, 2002, in the course of preparing the QDRO, the defendant's counsel, Kenneth Potash, obtained the document listing the plaintiff's contribu- tions to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of proving fraud in all of its elements by clear and convincing evidence. At the heart of this appeal is whether the defendant, Donna M. Sousa, proved by clear and convincing evidence that the plain- tiff, Eric P. Sousa, knew that the $32,698.82 he valued his pension at when the parties were divorced in 2001 was incorrect. The trial court found that the defendant failed to carry this burden. We affirm that judgment. We first turn to the procedural history of this case, which explains how it is again before us. This appeal, which stems from a judgment modifying a prior judg- ment dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ents of her fraud claim, we need not address whether this finding was clearly erroneous. 5 ‘‘Vested'' pension benefits are ‘‘pension interests in which an employee has an irrevocable . . . right, in the future, to receive his or her account balance (under a defined contribution plan), or his or her accrued benefit (under a defined benefit plan), regardless of whether the [employment] relationship continues.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Krafick v. Kraf- ick, 234 Conn. 783, 788 n.12, 663 A.2d 365 (1995). 6 We also note Attorney Potash's testimony that he received the appendix on January 3, 2002. This was nine years before"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c256ea40-4f7a-444c-83d9-a8601c6cef59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4174529-4174529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4174529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 865","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed as of April 21, 2001, at $32,698.82. The parties were divorced on December 19, 2001. They executed a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff's pension benefits would be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The separa- tion agreement further required the plaintiff to pay peri- odic alimony of $130 per week for five years or until the defendant began cohabitating with another individual. On January 3, 2002, in the course of preparing the QDRO, the defendant's counsel, Kenneth Potash, obtained the document listing the plaintiff's contribu- tions to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ddf89a0-23bd-43e7-bf7e-41008b4dc41d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175148","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1321","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4175148 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF NICOLE MARIE FLUENT AND GRANT JEROME FLUENT Upon the Petition of NICOLE MARIE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 16-1321. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4175148 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ddf89a0-23bd-43e7-bf7e-41008b4dc41d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175148","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1321","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ddf89a0-23bd-43e7-bf7e-41008b4dc41d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175148","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1321","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Nicole and Grant were married in August 2009. In November 2015, Nicole filed a petition for dissolution. Prior to trial, the parties executed a pretrial stipulation that resolved most issues between them, except for the division of the portion of Grant's retirement account earned during the marriage—sums totaling approximately $125,000. Nicole requested an equalization payment from the account in the amount of approximately $46,500.1 Grant requested the entirety of the account, in part as a set aside to him for a $74,000 inheritance he had received during the marriage from his mother's estate and certain premarital money"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ddf89a0-23bd-43e7-bf7e-41008b4dc41d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175148","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1321","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: short duration.12 Unless the parties otherwise agree, within ninety days of issuance of the procedendo in this case, Grant shall either (1) pay to Nicole the additional sum of $33,500 or (2) at his expense, take all steps necessary to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that shall award to Nicole said sum plus future allocable income accumulations minus allocable losses or expenses until distribution to Nicole pursuant to the retirement plan's provisions. We do not disturb any other aspect of the district court's decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 12 In reaching this outcome, we also considered Grant's claim Nicole used"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ddf89a0-23bd-43e7-bf7e-41008b4dc41d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175148-4175148","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175148","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1321","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: l assets. Further, in its decree, the district court does not specify what premarital property it set aside or the value it attributed to premarital property. Upon our review of the record, the only property clearly disputed by the parties at trial was the marital portion of Grant's retirement account and the proper treatment of the inheritance Grant received. This is the dispute we address on appeal. Iowa Code section 598.21(6) (2015) provides: Property inherited by either party or gifts received by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a prope"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4175670 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4175670 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: am), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29, U.S.Code, and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26, U.S.Code. As we explained in Blaine v. Blaine, Jackson App. No. 10CA15, 2011-Ohio-1654, at ¶20: [A] QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, at ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the Revised Code. R.C. 3105.89. {¶10} Richard is not disputing what the trial court ordered, but rather that the trial court modify the order to carry into effect the manifest intentions of the parties. In other words, reflect what is allowable under his retirement plan. \"He is not asking the trial court to modify the property division; he is requesting the trial court to modify the division of property order, the DPO, specifying the terms of the property division.\" Hines at ¶ 12. {¶11} We recognize that the trial court traditionally does not have jurisdiction to modify the DPO, but pursuant to R.C. 3105.89, the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rity Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29, U.S.Code, and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26, U.S.Code. As we explained in Blaine v. Blaine, Jackson App. No. 10CA15, 2011-Ohio-1654, at ¶20: [A] QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, at ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id. at ¶ 16. \"* * * Indeed a QDRO may not vary from, en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cfce1243-c032-4f60-8543-3b3707ebd03a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4175670-4175670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4175670","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: do so, does not cure the impossibility of performance to achieve the intent of the parties. However, the trial court did not clarify its order, so it cannot rule that the DPO is not void. A DPO \"[I]s an order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010 Ohio 252, 922 N.E.2d 214 (per curiam), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4177101 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Glover graduation. Docket: 34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4177101 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ities of the community is appropriate. I am rejecting Mr. Glover's request for a lopsided division. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10-12. The court's letter decision ruled that each party's community property interest in the other's pension would be handled by a QDRO; 1 observed that the parties had already divided their checking accounts, and divided the remaining community assets and liabilities as follows: Awarded to Mr. Awarded to Ms. Glover Glover Residence $270,000.00 Retirement accts $92,930.00 $92,930.00 I( $21,701.00 I( $28,037.00 I( $34,442.00 I( $16,388.00 I( $20,977.00 I( $20,791.00 Vehic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: re Marriage of Glover liabilities of the community is appropriate. I am rejecting Mr. Glover's request for a lopsided division. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10-12. The court's letter decision ruled that each party's community property interest in the other's pension would be handled by a QDRO; 1 observed that the parties had already divided their checking accounts, and divided the remaining community assets and liabilities as follows: Awarded to Mr. Awarded to Ms. Glover Glover Residence $270,000.00 Retirement accts $92,930.00 $92,930.00 I( $21,701.00 I( $28,037.00 I( $34,442.00 I( $16,388.00 I( $20,97"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: I( $2,000.00 I( $2,000.00 Total Assets $430,650.00 $191,220.00 Home mortgage ($115,543.00) Car loans ($4,848.00) I( ($5,222.00) Total Liabilities ($120,391.00) ($5,222.00) Asset allocation net of liabilities $310,259.00 $185,998.00 1 Qualified domestic relations order. 4 No. 34145-3-III In re Marriage of Glover The court's letter decision recognized that Ms. Glover had received a $120,000 inheritance after the dissolution action was filed, ruled that it retained its separate character, and awarded it to her. It observed that the community had received the benefit of a $95,000 inheritance Ms. Glover received in Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef86eb9b-2ad8-4227-888a-1db1cf0471ab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4177101-4177101","title":"CourtListener opinion 4177101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: RT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE In re the Marriage of ) ) No. 34145-3-111 RYAN GLOVER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) CONNIE GLOVER, ) ) Respondent. ) SIDDOWAY, J. - Ryan Glover appeals the maintenance award, property division, and payment terms ordered in the decree dissolving his almost 24-year marriage to Connie Glover. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ryan Glover filed for divorce from Connie Glover in November 2014, after nearly 24 years of marriage. Mr. Glover has a Bachelor's of Pharmacy degree and after No. 34145-3-111 In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0011c50-e093-40dd-ab50-ea8eb3f1ecf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178160","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4178160 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178160 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0011c50-e093-40dd-ab50-ea8eb3f1ecf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178160","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0011c50-e093-40dd-ab50-ea8eb3f1ecf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178160","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something happen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0011c50-e093-40dd-ab50-ea8eb3f1ecf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178160","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ually assaulted Stender. On March 25, Stender signed the second proposed decree upon the advice of Blessum. Stender testified at trial that she was a homemaker for most of her marriage to Phillip. She testified she was unaware of the amount in Phillip's retirement accounts, the state of the household finances, or the amount of alimony to which she might be entitled. She signed the decree based on Blessum's advice that the contents of the decree represented everything she was entitled to receive in the divorce. The final divorce decree awarded Stender $110,000 from Phillip's retirement account, half of the home furnishin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0011c50-e093-40dd-ab50-ea8eb3f1ecf7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178160-4178160","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178160","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll of the other accounts and the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4178280 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178280 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h adopted the parties' PSA. In paragraph 13A, the PSA provides as follows: Husband and Wife shall each retain as their sole and separate property all retirement accounts held prior to the marriage in their sole and separate name, and will divide 50/50 via Qualified Domestic Relations Order any interest in any retirement account held which was acquired between the date of the marriage and the date of separation. While this paragraph (entered into in 2010) references a QDRO, no QDRO was entered in this case until 2015. The parties' financial statements filed during the divorce proceedings listed the 1 The parties had one child together, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Mark W. Kelley, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner husband argues that (1) the lower courts erred in finding that the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\") is unambiguous as to the division of petitioner's retirement accounts, and (2) alternatively, if this Court finds no ambiguity, the lower courts erred in allocating respondent wife portions of each of petitioner's retirement accounts under the PSA's unambiguous language. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sary for the preparation of [q]ualified [d]omestic [r]elations [o]rders.\" Thereafter, petitioner husband filed a response to the motion to modify child support in which he asked that respondent wife be ordered to \"disclose all of her retirement, stocks [sic], pension and 401k accounts with supporting documentation[.]\" In April of 2015, the family court held a hearing on the motion to modify child support. At that hearing, the parties expressed their intent to enter a settlement of the child support claims. By subsequent order, in addition to resolving the child support issue, the family court ordered the parties to \"e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4a03c6a-ba0b-4dc5-a929-86290794915b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178280-4178280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tatements filed during the divorce proceedings listed the 1 The parties had one child together, who is now of the age of majority. 1 following retirement accounts: (1) respondent wife's IRA/SEP accounts in the amount of $2504.55; (2) petitioner husband's 401K/403B accounts in the amount of approximately $262,000; and (3) petitioner husband's IRA/SEP accounts in the amount of approximately $50,000. The parties agree that petitioner husband currently has three retirement accounts, one of which is apparently from his current employer, but that only two of those three accounts are at issue in this appeal.2 In Febr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27d6aa64-998b-44f9-bb8b-8b2c92a3f1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178486","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4178486 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178486 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27d6aa64-998b-44f9-bb8b-8b2c92a3f1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178486","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27d6aa64-998b-44f9-bb8b-8b2c92a3f1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178486","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something happen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27d6aa64-998b-44f9-bb8b-8b2c92a3f1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178486","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ually assaulted Stender. On March 25, Stender signed the second proposed decree upon the advice of Blessum. Stender testified at trial that she was a homemaker for most of her marriage to Phillip. She testified she was unaware of the amount in Phillip's retirement accounts, the state of the household finances, or the amount of alimony to which she might be entitled. She signed the decree based on Blessum's advice that the contents of the decree represented everything she was entitled to receive in the divorce. The final divorce decree awarded Stender $110,000 from Phillip's retirement account, half of the home furnishin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27d6aa64-998b-44f9-bb8b-8b2c92a3f1c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4178486-4178486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4178486","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll of the other accounts and the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4179502 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAROL LYNN GUPTON AND WENDEE KAY BROWN Upon the Petition of CAROL LYNN GUPTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16-1784. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4179502 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e parties' assets and debts, valued Carol's business at $10,000, and entered a qualified domestic relations order. We find the district court properly awarded shared physical care, properly divided the parties' assets and debts, and entered an appropriate qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Wendee and Carol began their relationship in 1994. They started cohabiting the same year. After a brief separation they began building a new house together in Carter Lake, Iowa, in 2000. Carter Lake is located west of the Missouri River on eastern edge of Omaha. Wendee gave birth to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e Marriage of Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987). VI. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Wendee also claims the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that erroneously allowed Carol to participate in post-dissolution retirement benefit increases. Pension benefits are divisible marital property in Iowa. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have established two methods for dividing pensions: dividing the present value of the pension plan, or assigning a percentage paid when the pension benefits mature. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: .W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987). VI. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Wendee also claims the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that erroneously allowed Carol to participate in post-dissolution retirement benefit increases. Pension benefits are divisible marital property in Iowa. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have established two methods for dividing pensions: dividing the present value of the pension plan, or assigning a percentage paid when the pension benefits mature. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Add"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9afd826-bd19-4b52-a396-476aab13c868","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4179502-4179502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4179502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1784","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: riage to Carol Lynn Gupton. Wendee claims the district court should have granted her physical care of the children, considered Carol's premarital assets in dividing the parties' assets and debts, valued Carol's business at $10,000, and entered a qualified domestic relations order. We find the district court properly awarded shared physical care, properly divided the parties' assets and debts, and entered an appropriate qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Wendee and Carol began their relationship in 1994. They started cohabiting the same year. After a brief sepa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24ba7723-5f3d-49c4-b231-612c2a701b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140","title":"CourtListener opinion 4180140","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4180140 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kane. Extracted reporter citation: 806 F.3d 414. Docket: Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4180140 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24ba7723-5f3d-49c4-b231-612c2a701b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140","title":"CourtListener opinion 4180140","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24ba7723-5f3d-49c4-b231-612c2a701b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140","title":"CourtListener opinion 4180140","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: g the statement; otherwise, the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24ba7723-5f3d-49c4-b231-612c2a701b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140","title":"CourtListener opinion 4180140","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: anulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy his then-unpaid fees of $37,000 and provide an additiona"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24ba7723-5f3d-49c4-b231-612c2a701b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4180140-4180140","title":"CourtListener opinion 4180140","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774","extracted_reporter_citation":"806 F.3d 414","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ement; otherwise, the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4182228 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: 16-CA-88 12 that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182228 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nts shall be made directly to [Husband]. Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-88 4 3. Said funds shall be held in trust except for the following immediate disbursements: *** [Husband] shall receive an amount of funds necessary to satisfy the payment to QDRO Consultants, LLC to complete the present value offset and DPO. No further distribution of funds shall be addressed until such time as QDRO Consultants, LLC has issued their report. At that time, [Wife] shall receive her share of the [Husband's] retirement benefits which have been paid to [Husband]. {¶9} The trial court held a hearing on February"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: al court was held on August 29, 2012. On February 1, 2013, the trial court issued the Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce. The trial court found the duration of the marriage was from November 13, 2004 to August 29, 2012. The trial court addressed the parties' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ddressed the parties' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall be awarded the entirety of her OPERS retirement, and a sufficient portion of the Defendant's OP&F Pension to equalize the marital portion of their retirements. Any deferred compensation accounts of the parties shall be e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccbee77d-ca31-4cb6-a983-f26d7fb703af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182228-4182228","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-CA-88 12 that the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"421 N.E.2d 1293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: es' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall be awarded the entirety of her OPERS retirement, and a sufficient portion of the Defendant's OP&F Pension to equalize the marital portion of their retirements. Any deferred compensation accounts of the parties shall be equalized in the same manne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c73a012-72d0-4d1f-be2a-b1a6a02a3d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182536","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4182536 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15–1456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182536 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c73a012-72d0-4d1f-be2a-b1a6a02a3d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182536","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c73a012-72d0-4d1f-be2a-b1a6a02a3d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182536","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n\" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose period th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c73a012-72d0-4d1f-be2a-b1a6a02a3d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182536-4182536","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182536","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e it constitutes an \"action\" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose per"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d263486-c5dd-4398-9d4c-857b1cf5ee50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4182946 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182946 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d263486-c5dd-4398-9d4c-857b1cf5ee50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d263486-c5dd-4398-9d4c-857b1cf5ee50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: they satisfied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine wh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d263486-c5dd-4398-9d4c-857b1cf5ee50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4182946-4182946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4182946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine wh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4183930 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN M. BECK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16-1443. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4183930 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, for appellant. Gerald J. Kucera, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Proceedings John and Catherine Beck married in 1997 and divorced in 2011. Before the dissolution decree was filed, the parties submitted a joint pretrial stipulation in which John asked to \"receive one-half of [his] [Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System account (IPERS)] earned during the marriage\" pursuant to the followi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ach for the parties. The district court denied the application. This appeal followed. II. Analysis John does not argue the language in the dissolution decree concerning his IPERS accounts fails to comport with our law on the division of defined-benefit pension plans. See In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248-50 (Iowa 2006); In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255-57 (Iowa 1996). He focuses on the QDRO language and contends it is inconsistent with the decree.1 1 Catherine responds that the QDRO was a property settlement, which could not be amended. To the contrary, \"the QDRO is not itself a prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: HERINE N. SMITH, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Kevin McKeever, Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Jennifer L. Zahradnik of Kollmorgen, Schlue & Zahradnik, P.C., Belle Plaine, for appellant. Gerald J. Kucera, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). I."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"306856ac-260e-4a3e-b13f-0e4f2a0b16d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4183930-4183930","title":"CourtListener opinion 4183930","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1443","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: O language and contends it is inconsistent with the decree.1 1 Catherine responds that the QDRO was a property settlement, which could not be amended. To the contrary, \"the QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division contained in a dissolution decree and may be modified later without affecting the finality of the underlying decree.\" In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011). 4 In his view, the dissolution decree \"clearly provides that the IPERS retirement account shall be split according to the formula based upon a service factor and a number of years"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59510082-15cd-48f6-a900-4fc878b6b440","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4184099","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4184099 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4184099 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59510082-15cd-48f6-a900-4fc878b6b440","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4184099","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59510082-15cd-48f6-a900-4fc878b6b440","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4184099","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: JE\"). As part of the May 2014 AJE, Mark agreed to pay Joan one-half of a $33,500 bonus payment he had received from his employer, Delphi Automotive, and any additional amounts subject to division as set forth in their divorce decree. He also agreed under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to pay Joan a cash payment of $200,000 and an additional $240,000 from his Delphi Corporation Salaried Retirement Program. {¶4} Days after executing the May 2014 AJE, Joan filed a motion to show cause, alleging that on May 4, 2014, and unbeknownst to her, Mark had entered into a Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi terminatin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59510082-15cd-48f6-a900-4fc878b6b440","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4184099","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 4 hearing that he would be obligated to pay Joan one-half of any bonuses and he also knew on that date that he would be receiving an additional $160,000 lump sum payment as part of his separation with Delphi. He further admitted that he closed his Fidelity retirement account and rolled the monies over to another account on June 4, 2014, which was two weeks after agreeing to transfer $240,000 from the Fidelity account to Joan. It was not until November 2014 that Mark finally transferred $240,000 from his new retirement account to Joan by QDRO. {¶9} According to the Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi Aut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59510082-15cd-48f6-a900-4fc878b6b440","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4184099-4184099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4184099","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: art of the May 2014 AJE, Mark agreed to pay Joan one-half of a $33,500 bonus payment he had received from his employer, Delphi Automotive, and any additional amounts subject to division as set forth in their divorce decree. He also agreed under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to pay Joan a cash payment of $200,000 and an additional $240,000 from his Delphi Corporation Salaried Retirement Program. {¶4} Days after executing the May 2014 AJE, Joan filed a motion to show cause, alleging that on May 4, 2014, and unbeknownst to her, Mark had entered into a Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi terminatin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4185350 Docket: 329993 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4185350 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uly 11, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 329993 Lenawee Circuit Court Family Division WILLIAM JOUGHIN, LC No. 02-025414-DM Defendant-Appellant. Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ. JANSEN, J. (dissenting). Because I believe that entry of a QDRO is an action to enforce a judgment of divorce and subject to the applicable statute of limitations, I respectfully dissent. This Court has held that MCL 600.5809 provides the applicable statute of limitations for the enforcement of a divorce settlement agreement. See Peabody v DiMeglio, 306 Mich App 397, 406; 856 NW2d 245 (2014) (holding that MCL 600.5809"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he reasoning advanced by plaintiff in this case, holding in Duhamel v Duhamel, 188 Misc 2d 754, 756; 729 NYS2d 601 (2001), that \"the limitations period relating to the Defendant's action seeking to preclude the entry of a QDRO, and thus subjecting Defendant's retirement benefits to equitable distribution, accrued after he reached pay status in the retirement benefits.\" The Duhamel Court provided little in the way of reasoning, but reiterated that \"since Plaintiff's right to receive a distribution under the Defendant's retirement plan did not accrue until after her former husband reached pay status, the -1- six-year limitation p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e absolutely extinguished and unenforceable due to [the plaintiff's] failure to file a QDRO or a renewal affidavit\" within the applicable statute of limitations. Larimore, 52 Kan App 2d at 44. The Larimore Court explained: A former spouse's right to receive pension benefits deemed marital property, however, does not arise under ERISA. That right or interest is based on a state court judgment ordered under state domestic relations law. Indeed, a \"QDRO only renders enforceable an already-existing interest.\" \" ‘[T]he QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that [the alternate payee] has no interest in the plan [ ] u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f184b461-6627-4f0a-abe1-b1c678388cf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185350-4185350","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: f Ohio recently distinguished an alternate payee's rights under a domestic relations order from the alternate payee's rights under a QDRO: A domestic relations order is a sufficient independent basis for a spouse to obtain a vested beneficial interest in an ERISA-qualified plan. A person awarded a lump-sum distribution from an ERISA plan pursuant to a divorce decree has a direct interest in plan funds while the plan reviews the DRO to determine whether it constitutes a QDRO. A domestic relations order, therefore, vests the spouse with rights protected by ERISA. The QDRO, by contrast, is necessary to take the ne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4185351 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Cray. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 329993 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4185351 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: it Court Family Division WILLIAM JOUGHIN, LC No. 02-025414-DM Defendant-Appellant. Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ. SAAD, J. In this post-divorce proceeding, defendant appeals1 the entry of a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in favor of plaintiff, which related to her interest in $23,823 of defendant's profit sharing annuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading \"PENSION, ANNUITY OR RET"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nnuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading \"PENSION, ANNUITY OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS,\" the trial court ordered the following: Plaintiff shall receive 50% of the sum of Defendant's accrued balance as of April 30, 2002, in the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local #55 Pension Plan. In addition, Plaintiff shall receive the sum of $23,823.00 from the Defendant's Iron Workers Local #55 Profit Sha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t's profit sharing annuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading \"PENSION, ANNUITY OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS,\" the trial court ordered the following: Plaintiff shall receive 50% of the sum of Defendant's accrued balance as of April 30, 2002, in the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local #55 Pension Plan. In addition, Plaintiff shall receive the sum of $23,823.00 from the Defendant's Ir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91dd5e38-65d9-4567-b6d7-b4dffc493d42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4185351-4185351","title":"CourtListener opinion 4185351","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"329993 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d 637 (1997). We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260; 884 NW2d 227 (2016), citing Halloran v Bhan, 470 Mich 572, 576; 683 NW2d 129 (2004). \"Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of private employee pension plans.\" Roth v 2 Technically, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC 1001 et seq., these orders are domestic relation orders. 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). As discussed later in this opinion, they do not become qualified domestic relation orders, i."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4187493 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PATRICIA SUE TRIPP AND CRAIG ALAN TRIPP Upon the Petition of PATRICIA SUE TRIPP. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 16-1996. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4187493 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cia would receive a Benson share1 of Craig's pension. At the time of the decree, the court did not have before it how long Craig had been in the plan nor how many more years he intended to continue to work. The court simply set out the formula by which a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] shall be prepared and entered. . . . The denominator shall be the number of years Craig has been in this plan. The numerator shall be the number of years the parties were married. Patricia's share of any benefits to be paid will be one-half of the resulting percentage. Craig filed a motion to amend or enlarge. In it, he maintained \"dividing th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2d at 850 (noting the factors to be considered in determining whether to award alimony and the amount). Here, where Craig had a pension to which he contributed with marital funds during the entirely of the parties' long marriage and Patricia was without a retirement account, it was equitable for the court to divide Craig's pension pursuant to the Benson formula. Cf. In re Marriage of Swenson, No. 05-2123, 2007 WL 601496, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007) (finding it equitable not to divide the spouse's pension where the marriage was one of short duration—less than three years—and the spouse seeking the division of the pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tricia—$200,890—is inequitable and should be reduced by $100,000. As part of his justification, he maintains the district court over-valued the marital home that was awarded to him. Additionally, Craig claims he should have been awarded the entirety of his pension. On cross-appeal, Patricia challenges the numbers the court used in the formula to determine her portion of Craig's pension. She asks that we otherwise affirm the decree and award her appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Patricia and Craig were married in 1988. They had two children during their marriage, who were both adults"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb165ad0-6a36-4c7c-8078-5b36ac1bc31f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187493-4187493","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187493","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1996","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: receive a Benson share1 of Craig's pension. At the time of the decree, the court did not have before it how long Craig had been in the plan nor how many more years he intended to continue to work. The court simply set out the formula by which a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] shall be prepared and entered. . . . The denominator shall be the number of years Craig has been in this plan. The numerator shall be the number of years the parties were married. Patricia's share of any benefits to be paid will be one-half of the resulting percentage. Craig filed a motion to amend or enlarge. In it, he maintained \"dividing th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4187806 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bartley. Extracted reporter citation: 678 N.E.2d 423. Docket: 17A03-1612-DR-2719 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4187806 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e. [11] The trial court divided the marital estate equally by allocating the Waterloo residence to Husband and a series of cash payments and transfers to Wife. The division stipulated that Wife would receive cash payments of $7,302.90 and a transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $42,602.79. Husband now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Property Division [12] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that, in an action for dissolution of marriage, the court must divide the property of the parties, whether: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A03-1612-DR-2719 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 10"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ts retained life estates in the property. Upon the death of his mother, which occurred during the marriage, Husband's contingent interest became a fee simple interest. [3] At the time of the dissolution, the marital estate assets also included a 401(k) retirement account; a savings plan; three vehicles; and three small bank accounts. Their liabilities included four credit card accounts in Wife's name, four medical bills incurred by Wife, and two utility bills incurred during the marriage and paid by Wife. [4] When the parties married, they lived in Wife's home in Ashley for approximately two years. Sometime in 2009"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): his parents retained life estates in the property. Upon the death of his mother, which occurred during the marriage, Husband's contingent interest became a fee simple interest. [3] At the time of the dissolution, the marital estate assets also included a 401(k) retirement account; a savings plan; three vehicles; and three small bank accounts. Their liabilities included four credit card accounts in Wife's name, four medical bills incurred by Wife, and two utility bills incurred during the marriage and paid by Wife. [4] When the parties married, they lived in Wife's home in Ashley for approximately two ye"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d8af058-4983-4810-80b8-8f72ef915562","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4187806-4187806","title":"CourtListener opinion 4187806","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17A03-1612-DR-2719 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"678 N.E.2d 423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he trial court divided the marital estate equally by allocating the Waterloo residence to Husband and a series of cash payments and transfers to Wife. The division stipulated that Wife would receive cash payments of $7,302.90 and a transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $42,602.79. Husband now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Property Division [12] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that, in an action for dissolution of marriage, the court must divide the property of the parties, whether: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A03-1612-DR-2719 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 10"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4189186 Extracted case name: DOWNHAM v. DOWNHAM. Extracted reporter citation: 680 P.2d 1217. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4189186 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ance is governed by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390, 690 P.2d at 109. The superior court first must determine whether the evidence supports that the requesting spouse: 2 In contrast to the decree, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), entered six months after the decree, states that if Husband predeceases Wife, \"the survivor benefit already elected will commence\" and prohibits Husband from revoking the \"survivor benefit already elected.\" 3 Wife filed a motion to set aside/reconsider the decree, which the superior court denied. Wife did not timely appeal from that order. Accord"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: verned by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390, 690 P.2d at 109. The superior court first must determine whether the evidence supports that the requesting spouse: 2 In contrast to the decree, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), entered six months after the decree, states that if Husband predeceases Wife, \"the survivor benefit already elected will commence\" and prohibits Husband from revoking the \"survivor benefit already elected.\" 3 Wife filed a motion to set aside/reconsider the decree, which the superior court denied. Wife did not timely appeal from that order. Accord"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: James P. Beene joined. W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Sandy Downham (\"Wife\") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Ronald Downham (\"Husband\"). She argues the superior court abused its discretion by failing to award her spousal maintenance, military survivor benefits, and attorneys' fees. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand to the superior court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties were married for twenty-four years and have no minor children. At the time of dissolution, Wife was unemployed and attending college. Husband worked part-time as a college instructor. He also received military retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a253ff4-e71b-4f89-b4b6-7b5eee6bc135","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4189186-4189186","title":"CourtListener opinion 4189186","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"680 P.2d 1217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 984). ¶7 \"[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution.\" Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 182, 713 P.2d 1234, 1240 (1986) (citing In re Marriage of Foster, 125 Ariz. 208, 608 P.2d 785 (App. 1980)). Property division is governed by A.R.S. § 25-318 (2017), which requires \"a substantially equal distribution of community assets in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary.\" Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 309, ¶ 7, 9 P.3d 1046, 1048 (2000). Spousal maintenance is governed by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e09d5ff8-03bd-4921-9713-c0645d1ffa20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4190614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"322 P.3d 897","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4190614 Extracted reporter citation: 322 P.3d 897. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4190614 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e09d5ff8-03bd-4921-9713-c0645d1ffa20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4190614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"322 P.3d 897","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e09d5ff8-03bd-4921-9713-c0645d1ffa20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4190614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"322 P.3d 897","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , Law Offices of David Baranow, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. CARNEY, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Jean Kollander filed suit in 2012 to reopen a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to her 1991 divorce. The superior court dismissed the suit based on laches and awarded full attorney's fees to her former husband, Daryl Kollander. Jean appealed. We affirmed the superior court's substantive decision but remanded for recalculation of attorney's fees in accordance with Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82. On remand the super"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e09d5ff8-03bd-4921-9713-c0645d1ffa20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4190614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"322 P.3d 897","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: her in determining the attorney's fee award or in sanctioning Merrill under Rule 11. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Daryl and Jean Kollander married in 1969 and divorced in 1991. The QDRO entered pursuant to their divorce granted each party a share of the other's retirement benefits. Daryl has been receiving monthly payments from Jean's pension since 2001. When Daryl retired in 2007 the federal Office of Personnel Management informed Jean that she would receive her share of Daryl's pension as a lump sum of $22,459.81, paid in monthly installments of $1,796.50. Jean received the final payment in 2008. In 2012 Jean moved to reopen the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e09d5ff8-03bd-4921-9713-c0645d1ffa20","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4190614-4190614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4190614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"322 P.3d 897","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Rule 11. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Daryl and Jean Kollander married in 1969 and divorced in 1991. The QDRO entered pursuant to their divorce granted each party a share of the other's retirement benefits. Daryl has been receiving monthly payments from Jean's pension since 2001. When Daryl retired in 2007 the federal Office of Personnel Management informed Jean that she would receive her share of Daryl's pension as a lump sum of $22,459.81, paid in monthly installments of $1,796.50. Jean received the final payment in 2008. In 2012 Jean moved to reopen the QDRO and to hold Daryl in contempt for failing to pay her the ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4191180 Extracted case name: K.A.R. v. T.G.L. Extracted reporter citation: 107 A.3d 770. Docket: 1443 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4191180 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ce decree, entered into an equitable distribution agreement which provided the wife with fifty percent of the marital portion of her ex-spouse's military and civil service pensions. The agreement resulted in a consent order which was later converted into a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Although the husband did not sign the QDRO or attend the hearing on the matter, the court approved and entered the QDRO after the wife filed a motion for special relief. The husband later contested the entry of the QDRO, but the court denied relief. The husband appealed. On appeal, this Court remanded the matter since the trial court had em"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2. In 2009, following an annual physical and psychiatric consultation, Appellant was declared totally disabled and was required to resign from the high school teaching position he held at that time. In December 2011, Husband decided to forego his monthly retirement benefits in order to receive tax-exempt payments through the Combat Related Service Connected Disability (\"CRSC\") program. In order to do so, Husband waived his right to the entirety of his military retirement payments. In February 2012, as a result of Husband's decision to wholly waive his retirement benefits, the monthly payments to Wife ceased. On Februar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: held before a hearing officer. The hearing officer found that the husband had waived his military retirement for an improper purpose and ordered him, in part, to pay the wife a lump sum for arrearages and $249 per month as alimony in lieu of his military pension. After the husband filed exceptions, the trial court held that alimony was not available as a remedy at that juncture, but nevertheless, granted the wife $249 per month in arrears owed from the military retirement payments. The husband again appealed to this Court. Of import here, the husband in Hayward argued on appeal that the trial court erred in d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7aa99b05-47a5-42aa-8867-12d4672b0754","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191180-4191180","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191180","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1443 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"107 A.3d 770","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: entered into an equitable distribution agreement which provided the wife with fifty percent of the marital portion of her ex-spouse's military and civil service pensions. The agreement resulted in a consent order which was later converted into a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Although the husband did not sign the QDRO or attend the hearing on the matter, the court approved and entered the QDRO after the wife filed a motion for special relief. The husband later contested the entry of the QDRO, but the court denied relief. The husband appealed. On appeal, this Court remanded the matter since the trial court had em"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c31c538-4b83-4ade-ab55-5ceff7232f5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1767","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4191876 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ABBY HOEGER NABER AND WILLIAM MICHAEL NABER Upon the Petition of ABBY HOEGER. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 16-1767. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4191876 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c31c538-4b83-4ade-ab55-5ceff7232f5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1767","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c31c538-4b83-4ade-ab55-5ceff7232f5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4191876-4191876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4191876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1767","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.W.2d 481","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d between the 12 parties. In the event William is able to secure refinancing for the home, we award Abby an equalization payment of $13,169.06 from William. Abby has requested that any equalization payment be made by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from retirement funds. William's brief does not address this QDRO issue. On our review of the assets and income of each party, it is clear that a judgment under either scenario would be an undue burden on the parties. We determine the equalization payment ultimately required be satisfied through a QDRO prepared by the payor and submitted to the payee f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4192398 Extracted reporter citation: 578 N.E.2d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4192398 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: her interest in Allen's pension and retirement benefits with John Hancock, PERF, and Valic for the coverture period, and for any appreciation in the value of her share of the accounts as of the effective date of the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1608-DR-1954 | August 3, 2017 Page 2 of 11 [4] Paragraph 9(H) is the provision of the Agreed Dissolution Decree resolving the division of the pension and retirement benefits. [Judith] shall be sole owner of and retain her full interest in her pension with In-Pact. The parties were married on April 29,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he dissolution court's order granting D. Juatrice Edwards' \"Motion to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets.\" The court concluded that after the death of Allen O. Edwards, it no longer had jurisdiction over the disbursement of Allen's pension and retirement benefits, which it had previously ordered, and dismissed the temporary restraining order protecting assets, which it had entered. We reverse and remand. Issue [2] The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether the dissolution court, which had expressly retained jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pension and retirement benef"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: peals from the dissolution court's order granting D. Juatrice Edwards' \"Motion to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets.\" The court concluded that after the death of Allen O. Edwards, it no longer had jurisdiction over the disbursement of Allen's pension and retirement benefits, which it had previously ordered, and dismissed the temporary restraining order protecting assets, which it had entered. We reverse and remand. Issue [2] The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether the dissolution court, which had expressly retained jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af334b35-fbde-468d-b629-e3498a41434f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4192398-4192398","title":"CourtListener opinion 4192398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"578 N.E.2d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ice, by counsel, filed a \"Motion for Leave to Intervene and Enter Limited Appearance to Offer Suggestion of Death and to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets.\" Id. at 51-56. Juatrice sought to intervene in the proceedings because she was Allen's surviving spouse and claimed an interest in some of the property encumbered by the trial court's restraining order. She further argued that any claim Judith had to property that had not been distributed during the four years since entry of the dissolution decree was now a claim against Allen's estate, as the dissolution court no longer had jurisdiction of the matt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4193432 Extracted reporter citation: 598 A.2d 31. Docket: 428 EDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4193432 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he monthly benefits Husband received since the account entered pay status, and fifty percent of the marital value of past and future benefits. She also requested counsel fees and the costs associated with drafting the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\") needed to facilitate the future payment of her portion of the benefit. Husband filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer based upon the position that the formation of a constructive trust pursuant to § 3505(d) required, as a prerequisite, the filing of an inventory during the equitable distribution process, and, in the absence of that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ty settlement agreement, Husband failed to make a full disclosure of the pension benefit that he earned during the ____________________________________________ 2 Husband and Wife dedicate significant discussion in their briefs to whether the reference to \"retirement accounts\" in the property settlement agreement subsumed the pension benefit that Husband earned during the marriage. However, that issue is a diversion. Regardless of the semantics of whether a \"pension benefit\" equates to a \"retirement account,\" the asset is subject to the recital's catch-all provision \"all other assets . . . subject to equitable distribution[.]\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rt of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 1995-60876-E BEFORE: BOWES, OTT AND SOLANO, JJ. OPINION BY BOWES, J.: Filed August 4, 2017 Peter Y. Bennett (\"Husband\") appeals from the March 1, 2016 order imposing a constructive trust over a pension benefit that accrued during his marriage to Pamela A. Bennett (\"Wife\").1 We reverse. Husband and Wife married on January 29, 1972 and divorced approximately twenty-three-and-one-half years later. Two children were born of the marriage. In anticipation of the divorce, the parties executed a property settlement agreement to facilitate equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3e480b9d-4453-4609-b03e-2058985c86c8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4193432-4193432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4193432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"428 EDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"598 A.2d 31","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ife presented the expert testimony of John McGovern, C.P.A., who stated that the parties received a $29,000 retirement distribution from an unidentified account during 1992. Mr. McGovern was unable to specify whether the source of the distribution was an IRA, 401(k), vested pension, or a combination of retirement plans. The only meaningful information to flow from the witness was that, approximately three years prior to the parties' execution of the property settlement agreement, Husband and Wife both knew that some form of retirement income existed and withdrew at least a portion of it. -5- J-A24011-16 was $1100;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fd02007-f729-4aa8-942c-f20874c1c561","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978","title":"CourtListener opinion 4194978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee","extracted_reporter_citation":"429 S.W.3d 562","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4194978 Extracted case name: TIMOTHY ALAN PORTICE v. ROSHAWNDA LYNN FOSTER PORTICE. Extracted reporter citation: 429 S.W.3d 562. Docket: to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4194978 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fd02007-f729-4aa8-942c-f20874c1c561","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978","title":"CourtListener opinion 4194978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee","extracted_reporter_citation":"429 S.W.3d 562","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fd02007-f729-4aa8-942c-f20874c1c561","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978","title":"CourtListener opinion 4194978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee","extracted_reporter_citation":"429 S.W.3d 562","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: recommended by the realtor to make the home marketable. . . . *** 9. That Wife shall receive one half (1/2) of the Husband's retirement existing at the time of the divorce. . . . The Husband shall provide the Wife the information necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to transfer funds into Wife's name. The Wife's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the final decree divided certain marital property and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony of $1,000 per month for 24 months. On June 6, 2016, Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fd02007-f729-4aa8-942c-f20874c1c561","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978","title":"CourtListener opinion 4194978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee","extracted_reporter_citation":"429 S.W.3d 562","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ormation necessary to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) needed to transfer one-half of [Husband's] retirement existing at the time of divorce entry to [Wife]. . . . Moreover, [Husband] has not provided information on his separate 401-K retirement plan from his work that is personal property to be divided equally according to the Judgment. . . . *** 11. Since the divorce hearing in December, [Husband] has attempted to use [Wife's] social security number and Comcast account to obtain home security and cable television at the marital home. The trial court heard Wife's motion for contempt on July 7,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1fd02007-f729-4aa8-942c-f20874c1c561","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4194978-4194978","title":"CourtListener opinion 4194978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee","extracted_reporter_citation":"429 S.W.3d 562","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d by the realtor to make the home marketable. . . . *** 9. That Wife shall receive one half (1/2) of the Husband's retirement existing at the time of the divorce. . . . The Husband shall provide the Wife the information necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to transfer funds into Wife's name. The Wife's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the final decree divided certain marital property and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony of $1,000 per month for 24 months. On June 6, 2016, Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4196283 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE ANNE KRAKER AND LEONARD PAUL KRAKER Upon the Petition of MICHELLE ANNE. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 16-1739. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4196283 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he total number of years he contributes to the plan before retirement (currently unknown) times the amount of his monthly retirement benefits determined at the time of his retirement. Under the MFPRS rules, a marital property order is the equivalent of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 774 (Iowa 2000). We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order, under Iowa Code section 411.13 (2015), in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. We have considered the remaining arguments rais"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ity benefits than he will. In addition, he states the court did not properly apply the formula found in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996), for dividing pension benefits. Michelle claims she is entitled to fifty percent of Leonard's retirement benefits. A division of pension benefits must be equitable. In re Marriage of O'Connor, 584 N.W.2d 575, 576-77 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). \"Pensions in general are held to be marital assets, subject to division in dissolution cases.\" In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993). One method of 5 dividing pension benefits is the present-value metho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 2 BOWER, Judge. Leonard Kraker appeals the property division and award of spousal support in the parties' dissolution decree, and Michelle Kraker cross-appeals on the issues of spousal support and attorney fees. We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. On all other issues of property division, spousal support, and attorney fees, we affirm the dissolution decree entered by the district court. We do not award appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts & P"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"394d865b-611a-424c-8e53-f32c7ea5f645","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4196283-4196283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4196283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1739","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: umber of years he contributes to the plan before retirement (currently unknown) times the amount of his monthly retirement benefits determined at the time of his retirement. Under the MFPRS rules, a marital property order is the equivalent of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 774 (Iowa 2000). We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order, under Iowa Code section 411.13 (2015), in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. We have considered the remaining arguments rais"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aae7df7-e1cb-4400-8b12-db667261d659","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333880 Kalamazoo Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4197551 Docket: 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4197551 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aae7df7-e1cb-4400-8b12-db667261d659","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333880 Kalamazoo Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aae7df7-e1cb-4400-8b12-db667261d659","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333880 Kalamazoo Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: UBLISHED August 17, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit Court SHERRY SUE DORKO, LC No. 2004-005765-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. The parties disagree on whether a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. Concluding that this case is controlled by a recently issued, binding decision of this Court, we hold that a QDRO is not subject to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aae7df7-e1cb-4400-8b12-db667261d659","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333880 Kalamazoo Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The consent judgment awarded defendant one half of the marital interest in plaintiff's retirement plan via a QDRO. Ten years and eight days later, defendant submitted a proposed QDRO to the trial court; several months later, defendant filed a revised proposed QDRO in January 2016. Plaintiff moved to set aside the revised proposed QDRO, arguing that it was time-barred under the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in MCL 600.5809(3) for enforcing a judgm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aae7df7-e1cb-4400-8b12-db667261d659","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197551-4197551","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333880 Kalamazoo Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: August 17, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit Court SHERRY SUE DORKO, LC No. 2004-005765-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. The parties disagree on whether a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. Concluding that this case is controlled by a recently issued, binding decision of this Court, we hold that a QDRO is not subject to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68db256d-d2de-41e9-8ef9-b492ab9a32c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of an order dividing husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"738 F.2d 968","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4197869 Extracted reporter citation: 738 F.2d 968. Docket: for entry of an order dividing husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4197869 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68db256d-d2de-41e9-8ef9-b492ab9a32c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of an order dividing husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"738 F.2d 968","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68db256d-d2de-41e9-8ef9-b492ab9a32c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of an order dividing husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"738 F.2d 968","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , 2013, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement (\"the agreement\") establishing, among other provisions, that \"Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense.\" The agreement also addressed the costs of enforcement as follows: (a) Husband and Wife agree that any costs, including, but not limited to counsel fees . . . incurred by a party in the successful enforcement of any of the agreements, covenants, or oth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68db256d-d2de-41e9-8ef9-b492ab9a32c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of an order dividing husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"738 F.2d 968","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ffirm the court's ruling. I. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2013, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement (\"the agreement\") establishing, among other provisions, that \"Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense.\" The agreement also addressed the costs of enforcement as follows: (a) Husband and Wife agree that any costs, including, but not limited to counsel fees . . . incurred by a party in the successful enforcement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"68db256d-d2de-41e9-8ef9-b492ab9a32c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4197869-4197869","title":"CourtListener opinion 4197869","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for entry of an order dividing husband","extracted_reporter_citation":"738 F.2d 968","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: p. LEXIS 29, at *14-16 (Feb. 2, 2016). We further ruled that the court did err by inserting certain injunctive provisions into the order. Id. at 1 The divorce decree provided that \"[t]his matter is held on open docket for 180 days for entry of a qualified domestic relations order[] or similar orders for the purpose of dividing husband's military retirement accounts/plans as called for in the incorporated settlement agreement.\" -2- *11-13. We did not address the issue of attorney's fees because the court had not issued a final order resolving that matter. Id. at *19. On remand, the court entered an amended MQCO in accordance wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20dc6bfe-85b7-4315-8030-0b9647e5c49b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4198662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A05-1607-DR-1692 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"6 N.E.3d 471","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4198662 Extracted reporter citation: 6 N.E.3d 471. Docket: 34A05-1607-DR-1692 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4198662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20dc6bfe-85b7-4315-8030-0b9647e5c49b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4198662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A05-1607-DR-1692 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"6 N.E.3d 471","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20dc6bfe-85b7-4315-8030-0b9647e5c49b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4198662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A05-1607-DR-1692 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"6 N.E.3d 471","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd ordered Husband to make an equalizing payment to Wife in the amount of $61,156.50. Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from Husband's Wells Fargo account. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Discussion & Decision [1] The trial court in this case entered special findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Our review of such findings and conclusions is two-tiered. In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 47"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20dc6bfe-85b7-4315-8030-0b9647e5c49b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4198662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A05-1607-DR-1692 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"6 N.E.3d 471","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lving his marriage to Anita Gillespie (Wife). Husband raises the following issues on appeal: 1. Was the trial court's finding that Husband had retained the parties' joint tax refund clearly erroneous? 2. Did the trial court err in including Husband's pension in the marital estate? Wife cross-appeals and raises the following issue: 3. Did the trial court err in excluding Husband's Wells Fargo account from the marital estate? [2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Facts & Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife have been married twice. The first marriage took place in 19"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20dc6bfe-85b7-4315-8030-0b9647e5c49b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4198662-4198662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4198662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"34A05-1607-DR-1692 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"6 N.E.3d 471","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Husband to make an equalizing payment to Wife in the amount of $61,156.50. Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from Husband's Wells Fargo account. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Discussion & Decision [1] The trial court in this case entered special findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Our review of such findings and conclusions is two-tiered. In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 47"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4199614 Extracted reporter citation: 749 N.W.2d 470. Docket: A-16-750. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4199614 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s' marriage and dividing the marital estate. The court determined that the value of the home was $240,000. The court awarded Carol 50 percent of the pension benefits earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: home at -1- $250,000. The second appraisal was offered by Robert and it valued the marital home at $230,000. Carol's appraisal had been conducted in December 2015, and Robert's had been conducted in January 2016. There was also evidence presented about a pension Robert had through Central States Pension Fund. At the time of trial, Robert was receiving approximately $3,600 per month from the pension. He started receiving distributions from the pension when he retired in 2014. Robert began earning his pension prior to the marriage, but earned a majority of the pension during the marriage. Robert testified that the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e and dividing the marital estate. The court determined that the value of the home was $240,000. The court awarded Carol 50 percent of the pension benefits earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81bbda09-70d2-4bfa-8d85-c66a831ef01f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4199614-4199614","title":"CourtListener opinion 4199614","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-16-750","extracted_reporter_citation":"749 N.W.2d 470","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pension earned during the marriage, and (3) ordering a property judgment against him and in favor of Carol in the amount of $87,921. STANDARD OF REVIEW"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4200274 Extracted case name: WALTER R. HURT v. VERDENA JONES-HURT. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S. Ct. 1400. Docket: 24D02003910 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200274 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eplacement, which is currently 10 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective December 19, 2008. An evaluation of 30 percent is assigned from February 1, 2010[.] On October 26, 2011, Wife reopened the case and filed a Complaint for Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. One of the two orders she sought pertained to Husband's military pension, and would have provided that \"any portion of the Service Member's Disposable Retired Pay that he waives in order to receive military disability retired pay . . . in lieu of Disposable Retired Pay shall be added back in, and any deficiency resulting from any such waiver that affe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: two during the second. After his first injury, Husband received a ten percent disability rating that entitled him to a Wartime Disability Compensation award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1110. He retired from the Army National Guard in 1998 and later applied for retirement benefits, which would kick in after he turned sixty years old. Husband and Wife married in 1972, and divorced on October 26, 2004, via a Judgment of Absolute Divorce issued by the circuit court. Among other things, the judgment awarded Wife alimony of $600 per month for three years and \"one-third of the marital share of [Husband]'s pension from the United Sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ________________ Opinion by Nazarian, J. _________________________ Filed: August 30, 2017 When Verdena Jones-Hurt (\"Wife\") and Walter Hurt (\"Husband\"), a veteran, divorced, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City included one-third of Husband's military pension in the marital property award it ordered in Wife's favor. Years after the divorce, Husband was reevaluated for a military service disability benefit and his disability rating increased, which made him eligible for more disability benefits and allowed him to waive a portion of his pension (which is taxable and may be considered marital property) in favor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65e2ebc5-efdb-4e11-9f9e-1e694c04d0a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200274-4200274","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200274","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"24D02003910 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , which is currently 10 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective December 19, 2008. An evaluation of 30 percent is assigned from February 1, 2010[.] On October 26, 2011, Wife reopened the case and filed a Complaint for Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. One of the two orders she sought pertained to Husband's military pension, and would have provided that \"any portion of the Service Member's Disposable Retired Pay that he waives in order to receive military disability retired pay . . . in lieu of Disposable Retired Pay shall be added back in, and any deficiency resulting from any such waiver that affe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4200798 Extracted case name: G.S. v. M.S. Extracted reporter citation: 895 N.E.2d 1215. Docket: 02A03-1612-DR-2724 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200798 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sure meaningful compliance with a dissolution decree. For example, in Cope v. Cope, 846 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the parties executed a decree that provided wife would receive a portion of husband's military pension, in installments, through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or other method approved by the military. The military refused to recognize the QDRO, and husband refused to make payments on his own. Wife sought to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court garnished husband's wages. A panel of this court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the trial court acted appropriately because"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he agreement purports to dispose of the parties' rights to all marital property, and the additional pension payments would appear to be marital property. See Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98 (1997) (marital property includes \"a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits\" and \"the right to receive pension or retirement benefits . . . that are vested . . . but that are payable after the dissolution of marriage\"). The agreement is ambiguous as to whether Joseph is entitled to a twenty-five percent share of the standalone payments. See Shepherd v. Tackett, 954 N.E.2d 477 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (divorce decree ambiguous"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ent agreement. The trial court approved the agreement on January 14, 2005, and incorporated it into a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. Among other provisions, the agreement required Margie to pay Joseph twenty-five percent of her \"gross monthly\" pension payments from the State of Indiana's Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and to disclose to Joseph on an annual basis the amount PERF paid her per month. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II, p. 23. [3] On February 27, 2015, Joseph filed a Verified Information for Contempt, Alternatively Breach of Contract. He amended the Verified Information on June"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"229fa49a-5a6a-4ed4-8281-268b3f67262a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200798-4200798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02A03-1612-DR-2724 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"895 N.E.2d 1215","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ngful compliance with a dissolution decree. For example, in Cope v. Cope, 846 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the parties executed a decree that provided wife would receive a portion of husband's military pension, in installments, through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or other method approved by the military. The military refused to recognize the QDRO, and husband refused to make payments on his own. Wife sought to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court garnished husband's wages. A panel of this court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the trial court acted appropriately because"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4200883 Extracted reporter citation: 669 A.2d 969. Docket: 835 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200883 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , in response to Wife's petition for ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 special relief, requesting clarification of the family law master's 1997 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ns, Page 11. -2- J-S39007-17 Subsequently, counsel for both parties submitted a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which was executed … on June 14, 1999. The QDRO stated as follows: (b) [Husband] shall withdraw $77,500.00 from his military retirement account. (c) [Husband] shall do so by paying no more than 50% of the present value of his monthly military retirement pension account. (d) Said payments shall continue until the sum total of $77,500.00 is paid to [Wife]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Tyler v. Tyler, 962 C.D. 1995 Dated June 14, 1999. The parties were divorced on January 5, 1999. On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 7 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) in connection with Husband's appeal: As part of the parties' divorce, equitable distribution was made. The Family Law Master (\"FLM\") issued a Report and Recommendati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"222aa503-24de-4b70-b0df-0ebd22a3fea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200883-4200883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"669 A.2d 969","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nse to Wife's petition for ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 special relief, requesting clarification of the family law master's 1997 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0968e6d7-866c-4324-9ed4-c99f56a16324","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4200884 Extracted case name: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ZANE M. TYLER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 835 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200884 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0968e6d7-866c-4324-9ed4-c99f56a16324","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0968e6d7-866c-4324-9ed4-c99f56a16324","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: S, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 I join the majority's decision to affirm the order awarding Wife the $17,224.17 balance of the amount outlined in the June 1999 qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") pursuant to a payment plan. I write separately to clarify that, unless Husband and Wife expressly merged the * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 QDRO into their January 1999 divorce decree, Husband's attempt to invoke § 3332 of the Domestic Relations Code as a bar to Wife's petition for relief is misplaced. Stated plai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0968e6d7-866c-4324-9ed4-c99f56a16324","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4200884-4200884","title":"CourtListener opinion 4200884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"835 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: EFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 I join the majority's decision to affirm the order awarding Wife the $17,224.17 balance of the amount outlined in the June 1999 qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") pursuant to a payment plan. I write separately to clarify that, unless Husband and Wife expressly merged the * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 QDRO into their January 1999 divorce decree, Husband's attempt to invoke § 3332 of the Domestic Relations Code as a bar to Wife's petition for relief is misplaced. Stat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4201793 Extracted reporter citation: 663 A.2d 184. Docket: 190 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4201793 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 07, 2017 These are three consolidated appeals filed by Christopher Smith (\"Husband\"), pro se, from the orders entered on September 15, 2015 and December 29, 2016.1 The September 15, 2015 order entered a divorce decree and order of equitable distribution/qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), and the December 29, 2016 order granted Susan C. Smith's (\"Wife\") motion to compel Husband to sign Wife's proposed QDRO, and denied Husband's motion to compel Wife to sign the QDRO that he proposed. After our review, we quash the appeal at 191 MDA 2017, and affirm the appeals at 190 MDA 2017 and 192 MDA 2017.2 _______________________________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: filed by each of the parties evidencing that each of the parties consents to the divorce.\" 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c). -4- J-S41024-17 3. The marital property, excluding the joint TD Ameritrade stock account and Husband's [State Employee Retirement System] Pension [SERS], shall be divided 53% to Wife and 47% to Husband, with an offset for credits. **** 7. Within sixty (60) days of the date of the final decree, Husband shall pay to Wife the sum of $92,310.88 to effectuate equitable distribution of the [marital] assets. 8. Husband's existing SERS pension value shall be divided equally between the parties by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: These are three consolidated appeals filed by Christopher Smith (\"Husband\"), pro se, from the orders entered on September 15, 2015 and December 29, 2016.1 The September 15, 2015 order entered a divorce decree and order of equitable distribution/qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), and the December 29, 2016 order granted Susan C. Smith's (\"Wife\") motion to compel Husband to sign Wife's proposed QDRO, and denied Husband's motion to compel Wife to sign the QDRO that he proposed. After our review, we quash the appeal at 191 MDA 2017, and affirm the appeals at 190 MDA 2017 and 192 MDA 2017.2 _______________________________"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7a53b18-5020-4dae-a6ab-5d3c355c8614","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201793-4201793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"190 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"663 A.2d 184","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: final decree, Husband shall pay to Wife the sum of $92,310.88 to effectuate equitable distribution of the [marital] assets. 8. Husband's existing SERS pension value shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a QDRO. Husband shall elect the survivor annuity option. QDRO preparation costs shall be divided between the parties. 9. The joint TD Ameritrade stock account shall be divided 53% to Husband and 47% to Wife based upon its current valuation at the time [] the final Divorce Decree is entered. 10. Wife's request for alimony is DENIED. Order, 9/15/15. On October 5, 2015, Husband filed a pro se no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4201842 Extracted reporter citation: 637 N.E.2d 914. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4201842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and all contributions thereto for 2012 that currently are earned (whenever such contributions are paid into the plan). The parties agreed this division would be made by a proper Qualified Domestic Relations Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 0043 3 Order (\"QDRO\"). The parties also agreed that Wife's share of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan \"shall include\" gains and losses on a pro rata basis from the date that 2012 contributions are made until the QDRO is approved and implemented, or until the transfer of Wife's shares are completed. {¶6} In Section 11(D) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties ag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: m (duration) of spousal support. {¶4} In Section 11(B) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties agreed Husband would take, free and clear of any claims by Wife, all rights, title, and interest in and to the Fidelity Investments/Ariel Corporation Employee Retirement Plan, a 401(K) plan. {¶5} Section 11(C) of agreed judgment entry deals with Husband's Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan and provides that Wife shall be awarded and shall take, have, and own, free and clear of any claims by Husband, one half the balance of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan in Husband's name. Further, that said balance of the Ari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d an appeal of the trial court's decision and argued: the trial court erred by modifying a division of martial assets after the court journalized a divorce Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 0043 5 decree; the trial court erred by attaching exempt funds in a pension account where the plan-participant spouse was not receiving distributions from the account; and the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees on appellee's motion for contempt. {¶14} In Bittner v. Bittner, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 15 CAF 03 0024, 2015-Ohio- 4707, we overruled appellant's assignments of error, finding: the trial court did not err in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fece2f64-c6d6-41dc-8cc0-853ab5cc2e3b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4201842-4201842","title":"CourtListener opinion 4201842","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"637 N.E.2d 914","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): usal support. {¶4} In Section 11(B) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties agreed Husband would take, free and clear of any claims by Wife, all rights, title, and interest in and to the Fidelity Investments/Ariel Corporation Employee Retirement Plan, a 401(K) plan. {¶5} Section 11(C) of agreed judgment entry deals with Husband's Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan and provides that Wife shall be awarded and shall take, have, and own, free and clear of any claims by Husband, one half the balance of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan in Husband's name. Further, that said balance of the Ariel Corpora"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4203104 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAROL A. TINKER AND GEOFFRY A. TINKER Upon the Petition of CAROL A. TINKER. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 17-0327. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4203104 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: evin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Carol A. Tinker, Waterloo, appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. This case involves a challenge to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The QDRO at issue divided an account in the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pursuant to the decree dissolving the marriage of Geoffry and Carol Tinker. On appeal, Geoffry contends the QDRO impermissibly modified the dissolution decree in directing Geoffry to select a particular IPERS benefit option, designate Carol as the benef"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to the dissolution of the parties' marriage were resolved by pretrial stipulation and other issues were resolved following trial to the district court. One of the issues resolved by pretrial stipulation was the division of Geoffry's and Carol's respective retirement accounts. With respect to Geoffry's IPERS account, the pretrial stipulation provided: The parties further agree that the proceeds of Geoffry's IPERS plan shall be divided pursuant to the Benson formula, with Carol receiving a fraction of Geoffry's IPERS plan equal to the following: 50% of the gross monthly or lump sum distribution payable to the member, mul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: gels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Carol A. Tinker, Waterloo, appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. This case involves a challenge to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The QDRO at issue divided an account in the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pursuant to the decree dissolving the marriage of Geoffry and Carol Tinker. On appeal, Geoffry contends the QDRO impermissibly modified the dissolution decree in directing Geoffry to select a particular IPERS benefit option, designate Carol as the benef"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44b991e7-163a-4273-8ce5-665ba441edfe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203104-4203104","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203104","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0327","extracted_reporter_citation":"810 N.W.2d 880","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Because the plain language of the decree addresses only the proper division of Geoffry's IPERS benefit and does not in any way limit or constrain Geoffry's ability to elect his IPERS benefit, the QDRO in this case was an impermissible modification of the property division or an impermissible serial final judgment. See In re Marriage of Thatcher, 864 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Iowa 2015) (considering whether bifurcated decree was a reviewable final judgment). We thus vacate the district court's order approving the proposed QDRO. We remand this matter for presentation and approval of a QDRO implementing the express terms of the dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4203235 Extracted reporter citation: 249 S.W.3d 346. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4203235 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\") and a permanent parenting plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts (\"UTMA accounts\")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ing plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts (\"UTMA accounts\")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4) failing to transfer to Wife half of the non"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the trial, the court found in favor of Wife on all issues. First, the trial court found Husband in civil contempt for violating paragraph 13 of the MDA, which provided that Wife would receive one-half of the funds in a T. Rowe Price account: 13. RETIREMENT/PENSION PLANS: Upon entry of Final Decree of Divorce, one-half of the funds and assets in the T. Rowe Price Roth IRA, account ending in #5830, styled in the name of Husband, shall be, and is hereby, transferred to Wife, and said one-half shall be divested out of Husband and vested absolutely in Wife. The court found that the T. Rowe Price account referenced"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6fdc128-9818-47e4-90c8-99ce21fde2e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4203235-4203235","title":"CourtListener opinion 4203235","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"249 S.W.3d 346","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: issolution agreement (\"MDA\") and a permanent parenting plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts (\"UTMA accounts\")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4205501 Extracted reporter citation: 874 A.2d 148. Docket: 1618 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4205501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ndations of the Special Master. See, Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2014. No appeal was taken from the Court's determination of the exceptions and a divorce decree was entered on June 25, 2014. On July 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order approving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] which provided for $15,669.50 to Wife in Equitable Distribution upon [Appellant's] retirement. At the time of entering the QDRO, [Appellant] indicated that his retirement was imminent. Since 2014, [Appellant] has delayed his retirement and stated to the Court that he intends to work six (6) more years. N.T., 10/7/2016, at 5. Trial Court Opinio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: this timely appeal. Appellant presents six issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in invalidating the QDRO, therefore applying [sic] the Special Master recommendation of equitable distribution of the marital portion of the Appellant's retirement benefits be ordered and directed from financial resources knowing the Appellant had no such funds available to him outside the funds in his retirement plan, payable within 60 days after the entering of a divorce decree. -2- J-A12005-17 2. Whether the trial court erred in assessing the Appellant's consideration of retirement, but due to events which created"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: earing or in his brief – that the QDRO should remain in effect because of his \"unforeseen financial hardship.\" Id. at 22. It is undisputed that pursuant to the court's May 6, 2014 order, Wife was awarded the $15,669.50 as her marital share of Appellant's pension, to be paid within 60 days. N.T., 10/7/16, at 2. Thereafter, the parties executed the QDRO with the understanding that Appellant would be retiring, and Wife agreed to wait until the fall of 2014 to receive the funds from Appellant's retirement. Id. at 3, 6. Appellant testified that he \"did have intentions of retiring that year but . . . had to postpone"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a73a491-12a2-48ff-ac28-0241b80d23d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4205501-4205501","title":"CourtListener opinion 4205501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1618 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 A.2d 148","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f the Special Master. See, Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2014. No appeal was taken from the Court's determination of the exceptions and a divorce decree was entered on June 25, 2014. On July 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order approving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] which provided for $15,669.50 to Wife in Equitable Distribution upon [Appellant's] retirement. At the time of entering the QDRO, [Appellant] indicated that his retirement was imminent. Since 2014, [Appellant] has delayed his retirement and stated to the Court that he intends to work six (6) more years. N.T., 10/7/2016, at 5. Trial Court Opinio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4206481 Extracted case name: APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT v. ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT COUNTY OF SUMMIT. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 THE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4206481 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s was a writ (1) \"giving effect to the Order of the Court of Common Pleas allowing [him] to change the beneficiary of his STRS plan;\" and (2) \"directing STRS to follow the terms of [R.C.] 3307.60(A)(3) and allow [him] to name a new beneficiary for his STRS retirement plan and return the plan to a single lifetime benefit equivalent.\" {¶5} STRS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and failure to state a claim. In the alternative, STRS moved to transfer the case to Franklin County. The trial court rejected STRS' motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and the motion to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ouse, Ms. Maldonado, as his beneficiary in a joint and survivor annuity without reversion option. In February 2016, Mr. Daniels obtained a divorce and an order from the domestic relations court stating he \"may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations.\" 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations order, to STRS requesting to change his beneficiary from his ex-spouse to his daughter. STRS denied his request to change the beneficiary because Mr. Daniels had selected \"the Joint and Survivor An"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd an order from the domestic relations court stating he \"may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations.\" 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations order, to STRS requesting to change his beneficiary from his ex-spouse to his daughter. STRS denied his request to change the beneficiary because Mr. Daniels had selected \"the Joint and Survivor Annuity 15 year guaranteed one-half to beneficiary without reversion option.\" The denial letter explained that the plan he chose at the time of retirement did not per"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce4125b9-b138-42d3-9fbe-2e1671dd936d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206481-4206481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206481","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 THE","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: em (\"STRS\") and Cecilia Maldonado. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms. I. {¶2} In January 2005, Mr. Daniels retired as a member of STRS. At that time, he was married and chose his spouse, Ms. Maldonado, as his beneficiary in a joint and survivor annuity without reversion option. In February 2016, Mr. Daniels obtained a divorce and an order from the domestic relations court stating he \"may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations.\" 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4206676 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RICHARD L. COOK AND SUSAN K. COOK Upon the Petition of RICHARD L. COOK. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 16-2078. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4206676 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t aside Richard's inherited property to him and attempted to equally divide most of the couple's joint assets and the largest of the couple's liabilities. Richard's pension from his thirty-four years of employment with Sealed Air was divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) affording Susan \"50% of the marital factor of 31/34.\"1 As for spousal support, the court ordered Richard to 1 The QDRO provided: 3 pay Susan $800.00 per month until \"Susan dies, Richard dies or Susan remarries.\" Richard moved for enlarged findings and conclusions. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed. II. Analysis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RD L. COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning SUSAN K. COOK, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Kevin McKeever, Judge. Richard Cook appeals the pension and spousal support provisions of a decree of dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Michael K. Lang of Knuth Law Office, Anamosa, for appellant. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. Richard and Susan Cook marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Id. at 255. \"[T]his percentage is based on the number of years the employee accrued benefits under the plan during the parties' marriage in relation to the total years of benefits accrued at maturity.\" Id. The formula is as follows: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50% of the marital portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marital portion shall be determined by multiplying the Participant's accrued benefit by a Coverture Fraction"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c37b419-e429-4b5f-9d59-154169aa37c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4206676-4206676","title":"CourtListener opinion 4206676","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-2078","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ichard's inherited property to him and attempted to equally divide most of the couple's joint assets and the largest of the couple's liabilities. Richard's pension from his thirty-four years of employment with Sealed Air was divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) affording Susan \"50% of the marital factor of 31/34.\"1 As for spousal support, the court ordered Richard to 1 The QDRO provided: 3 pay Susan $800.00 per month until \"Susan dies, Richard dies or Susan remarries.\" Richard moved for enlarged findings and conclusions. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed. II. Analysis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4207112 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 987 N.E.2d 1130. Docket: 06A01-1701-DR-52 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4207112 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ds [Wife]'s attorneys' fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves out earlier; 4. [Husband]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves out earlier; 4. [Husband] SHALL refi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71472e01-0831-4cc3-a4d6-372c43a1412c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4207112-4207112","title":"CourtListener opinion 4207112","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06A01-1701-DR-52 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"987 N.E.2d 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s attorneys' fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4211612 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4211612 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eals the order of the Circuit Court of Wood County, entered July 14, 2016, affirming a March 30, 2016, order of the Family Court of Wood County. In its March 30, 2016, order, the family court denied petitioner's motion to amend the parties' February 28, 2001, qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") on the ground that he requested the retroactive application of W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-7.2.a, which sets forth the current method for calculating a former spouse's share of a member/retirant's pension. Respondent Sarah Jarvis, by counsel Richard A. Bush, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a Public Employees Retirement System, 235 W.Va. 602, 606 n.3, (Continued . . .) 1 pursuant to W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-6.2.1 (2000), which provided as follows: In cases of divorce or legal separation whereby the member's or retirant's interest in his or her retirement account is subject to division pursuant to domestic relations law, that portion of the member's or retirant's retirement account which is subject to division by the Court shall be determined by the Board by using the following formula, but only after the benefits are available to the member or retirant: a former spouse's interest shall be computed by the Board"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rties' February 28, 2001, qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") on the ground that he requested the retroactive application of W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-7.2.a, which sets forth the current method for calculating a former spouse's share of a member/retirant's pension. Respondent Sarah Jarvis, by counsel Richard A. Bush, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon considera"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24770d91-35ba-41cf-bce3-27efffd452df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211612-4211612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: action, the numerator being the number of years of contributing service incurred during the marriage, and the denominator being the total number 775 S.E.2d 483, 487 n.3 (2015), we found that a QDRO is a \"domestic relations order that recognizes existence of alternate payee's right to all or portion of benefits payable under pension plan.\" 2 In Chico Dairy Co., Store No. 22 v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 181 W.Va. 238, 243, 382 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1989), we found that, pursuant to the rulemaking article of the State Administrative Procedures Act, West Virginia Code §§ 29A-3-1 to 29A-3-20, legislative rules require the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2cd2b152-8641-4c2a-bd20-7e7d1715f6ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"52A05-1701-DR-203 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4211634 Extracted reporter citation: 62 N.E.3d 1212. Docket: 52A05-1701-DR-203 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4211634 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2cd2b152-8641-4c2a-bd20-7e7d1715f6ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"52A05-1701-DR-203 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2cd2b152-8641-4c2a-bd20-7e7d1715f6ce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4211634-4211634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4211634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"52A05-1701-DR-203 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arrears for the non-payment of overtime earnings between 2001 and 2004 in the sum of $10,617.76, plus orthodontic work for the children in the sum of $1,878.67, for a total of $12,496.43. Father satisfied the total amount due by transferring said funds by QDRO on November 22, 2004. 5. On February 4, 2010, the court entered two judgments against Father. The first judgment was for $13,428.03. The second judgment was for $8,365.11, for a total of $21,793.14. Father satisfied the second judgment in the sum of $8,365.11 on 1/18/11 by paying $8,400 as evidenced by the child support payment history introduced in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4212355 Extracted reporter citation: 700 N.W.2d 684. Docket: 20170085. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4212355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at an order-to-show-cause hearing on November 16, 2015. [¶5] Prior to the hearing on the order to show cause, a proposed Order on Military Retirement Pay addressing allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement was prepared; the order was drafted as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). During the hearing held on November 16, 2015, Phyllis Berry requested that the district court sign the Order on Military Retirement Pay and include within the order a statement that the court was retaining jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court thereafter included a handwritten modification on th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o. 20170085 Jensen, Justice. [¶1] Phyllis Berry appealed from a corrected judgment revising the parties' original divorce judgment. Because Phyllis Berry requested the district court retain jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits and the court effectively denied her request for attorney fees, we affirm. I [¶2] Phyllis Berry and Ronald Berry were divorced in a judgment entered on January 24, 2008. Following entry of the judgment, Phyllis Berry requested the district court reconsider its allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court entered an order de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: er-to-show-cause hearing on November 16, 2015. [¶5] Prior to the hearing on the order to show cause, a proposed Order on Military Retirement Pay addressing allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement was prepared; the order was drafted as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). During the hearing held on November 16, 2015, Phyllis Berry requested that the district court sign the Order on Military Retirement Pay and include within the order a statement that the court was retaining jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court thereafter included a handwritten modification on th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e7094c0e-f4d9-4c59-a88c-2853143cb048","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4212355-4212355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4212355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170085","extracted_reporter_citation":"700 N.W.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: sfy the requirements under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 for modification of the judgment. [¶8] A district court does not have continuing jurisdiction over a final property distribution. Ebach v. Ebach , 2005 ND 123, ¶ 16, 700 N.W.2d 684. Modification of a final property division in a divorce may be modified in the same manner and on the same grounds as other judgments including a motion pursuant to N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Kopp v. Kopp , 2001 ND 41, ¶ 6, 622 N.W.2d 726; N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 (Rule 60). [¶9] The district court properly denied Ronald Berry's initial request to modify the allocation of his military retirement benefits aft"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3c6e86d-e42e-40c2-a4f5-604639d6491e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885","title":"CourtListener opinion 4213885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"823 F.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4213885 Extracted reporter citation: 823 F.3d 537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4213885 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3c6e86d-e42e-40c2-a4f5-604639d6491e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885","title":"CourtListener opinion 4213885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"823 F.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3c6e86d-e42e-40c2-a4f5-604639d6491e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885","title":"CourtListener opinion 4213885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"823 F.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: maintains and which Fidelity services. Fidelity began sending Stephens monthly benefit checks in 2009. But rather than cash the checks, Stephens returned the unopened envelopes to Fidelity. Apparently Stephens believed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in his Utah divorce case rendered him liable for any amounts intended for his ex-wife (who was awarded a portion of the benefits) but accidently mailed to him. This went on until late 2014, when Fidelity sent Stephens a check for $152,890.38, representing a lump-sum payment for all benefits due up to that point. Fidelity filed a corresponding 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3c6e86d-e42e-40c2-a4f5-604639d6491e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885","title":"CourtListener opinion 4213885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"823 F.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ______ Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kenton Stephens sued Alliant Techsystems Corporation and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operational Company over a dispute related to the distribution of his retirement benefits. Stephens appeals the district court's order overruling his objections to various rulings by the magistrate judge, granting * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3c6e86d-e42e-40c2-a4f5-604639d6491e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4213885-4213885","title":"CourtListener opinion 4213885","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"823 F.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: hat Stephens raised three claims in his complaint: (1) a claim for declaratory judgment that the 1099-R form the defendants filed with the IRS was void, (2) a fraud claim, and (3) a claim the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Stephens' declaratory judgment claim, that he failed to allege or submit evidence showing the elements of fraud were met, and that Stephens provided no legal or factual support for his suggestion that the defendants violated ERISA. We agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to void the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4214151 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: reflects no further action in the case until the en. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4214151 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arded Husband 50% of the value of \"Wife's DRBA pension and ING account up to September 21, 2013, the date of separation....\" The Family Court instructed Husband to retain a lawyer for the purpose of drafting the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), implementing the substance of the court's ruling, and to file the QDRO with the court by March 1, 2016. The Family Court also directed the parties to provide additional information by February 1, 2016 regarding post-separation deposits and withdrawals from the parties' joint bank account, which the court would use to determine how to divide their tax li"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (l) The appellant, Damon Yancey (\"Husband\"), filed this appeal from an order of the Family Court, dated October 14, 2016, vacating its earlier order awarding Husband a 50% interest in one of his ex-Wife's retirement plans. Husband's sole argument on appeal is that the Family Court abused its discretion by vacating its previous order Without providing any reasons. After our review of the record, Which is unclear and incomplete, especially With respect to Wife's retirement accounts, We conclude that the judgment of the Family Court is not 1 The Court previously assigned pse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mployed, and had no retirement accounts. Wife Was 33-years-old, had been employed by the Delaware River and Bay Authority (\"DRBA\") since 2006, and participated in two employer-sponsored retirement plans. Wife loosely referred to her retirement accounts as the pension plan and the ING account. Although no documentation regarding either plan Was entered into evidence, Wife's disclosure in the Rule l6(c) Financial Report appears to demonstrate that she has an interest in the \"DRBA Pension Plan\" and employer-approved 401(a) (retirement) and 457(b) (deferred compensation) accounts. (4) lt bears noting that the absence of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6575bd9-0847-4d96-9f5a-88fdcfdc5ab6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214151-4214151","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214151","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects no further action in the case until the en","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Court on July 7, 2016. The only apparent difference between the original QDRO and the amended QDRO is the name of the retirement plan, which was changed from the \"Delaware River and Bay Authority 401(a) Plan\" to \"the Delaware River and Bay Authority Employees Defined Contribution Plan.\" (13) On July 13, 2016, the Family Court entered a second property division order (\"the Second Property Division Order\"). The Second Property Division Order refers to the First Property Division Order as a \"Pre-Trial Order.\" In relevant part, the Second Property Division Order states that Wife was not entitled to any reimbursement for money that she d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4214976 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4214976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ef Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1989, the then unmarried John Breckenridge Gibson, Jr., began working for the University of Texas at Dallas and designated his sister, Beverly Ward, as the beneficiary of any and all death benefits payable from his retirement plan with the Teachers' Retirement System of Texas (TRS). Though, in 2003, Gibson married Mildred Diane Fox-Gibson, he never changed his TRS beneficiary designation. In 2011, Gibson died intestate. Fox-Gibson was appointed the administrator of Gibson's estate and later filed this action1 in the administration proceeding in her representative capacity seekin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the time of the designation of Beverly Gibson, aka Beverly Ward, as the plan beneficiary, no spousal consent was required for the designation. Tex. Admin. Code § 73.29(a) (l ). 6. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. Chap. 18 )(\"ERISA\") does not apply to state governmental employee benefit plans per 29 U.S.C. Chap. 18 §§ 1002(32), 1003. 7. The TRS Plan is, by definition, a state governmental employee benefit plan. Ibid. 8. Because ERISA does not apply to the TRS Death Benefits, there is no requirement that any of the TRS Death Benefits be payable to the Surviving Spouse of the Ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: APP. P. 41.3. 3 On January 16, 2014, an initial hearing was held on the application. At the hearing, Fox-Gibson testified that she was married to Gibson on September 26, 2003, and that he passed away on September 26, 2011. She also testified that she is the alternate payee and that the community interest was any deposits and interest made into the account after the date of their marriage. Fox-Gibson also entered into evidence certain business records concerning Gibson's TRS plan account. Ward stated that she was the named beneficiary and that Gibson left all of the benefits to her, but she also asked that Fox-Gibson be awarde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a759e3d5-7266-4cc3-a720-9315ce86260f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4214976-4214976","title":"CourtListener opinion 4214976","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eath, any death benefits payable by reason of the death of Gibson (TRS Death Benefits) became payable to his named beneficiary, . . . Ward. 12. Because the TRS Death Benefits are payable pursuant to the TRS Plan to the named beneficiary under the plan, no domestic relations order regarding the payment of plan benefits was 4 entered judgment that Ward, as the named payable-on-death beneficiary under the TRS plan, was to be paid all of the plan benefits. On appeal, Fox-Gibson complains that the probate court erred in failing to strike Ward's allegedly late-filed petition for declaratory judgment, in its conclusion of law that th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab51562-111f-4ef9-b587-a6e82c9e0be9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4216296 Extracted case name: CLEARY v. CORDERO. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4216296 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab51562-111f-4ef9-b587-a6e82c9e0be9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab51562-111f-4ef9-b587-a6e82c9e0be9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: benefits to himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would \"have no contact whatsoever with each other.\" ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spousal maintenance and child support at trial."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab51562-111f-4ef9-b587-a6e82c9e0be9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: signed a portion of those benefits to himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would \"have no contact whatsoever with each other.\" ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spous"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cab51562-111f-4ef9-b587-a6e82c9e0be9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216296-4216296","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: o himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would \"have no contact whatsoever with each other.\" ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spousal maintenance and child support at trial."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4216432 Extracted reporter citation: 830 F.3d 1195. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4216432 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nforth subsequently received a judgment in her favor, including attorney's fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l from the Florida court's decision. Instead, he filed a second action against Fidelity in Florida bringing similar claims to those he brought in the first Florida action, and alleging that Fidelity wrongfully took funds 2 from his annuity, brokerage and retirement accounts. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity, explaining that there were presently in effect one or more valid orders and/or judgments of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, which expressly required Fidelity, a garnishee in the Oklahoma case, to withhold, sell, or transfer ownership of the Annuity, Investment Account, and AOL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr. Cornforth then filed an action against Fidelit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"493b3651-a0d6-4427-82ad-5dd5293499ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4216432-4216432","title":"CourtListener opinion 4216432","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"830 F.3d 1195","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sequently received a judgment in her favor, including attorney's fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6deb784-dd72-4bf1-96b5-8f40ae39b4cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4218021 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4218021 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6deb784-dd72-4bf1-96b5-8f40ae39b4cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6deb784-dd72-4bf1-96b5-8f40ae39b4cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: st. Geauga No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093. {¶3} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving certain Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") filed by appellee, Tatiana Dilley. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶7. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on June 7, 2016. On appeal, we found appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶11, ¶15. {¶4} While that appeal was pending, on January 7, 2017, appellant filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6deb784-dd72-4bf1-96b5-8f40ae39b4cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and subject to imputed income are then void ab initio or Plain Error. [6.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to garnish 100% of the Plaintiff-Appellant's social security benefits and pension benefits. It lost its jurisdiction when it exceeded statutory procedure, statutory authority, and violated the Appellant's due process rights when it in [sic] violated Federal and State law and was inconsistent with the final divorce decree making the judgments/orders void ab initio. [7.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its authority"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6deb784-dd72-4bf1-96b5-8f40ae39b4cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218021-4218021","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093. {¶3} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving certain Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") filed by appellee, Tatiana Dilley. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶7. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on June 7, 2016. On appeal, we found appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶11, ¶15. {¶4} While that appeal was pending, on January 7, 2017, appellant filed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4218687 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARSHA KAY HILLER AND STEVEN MARK NELSEN Upon the Petition of MARSHA KAY HILLER. Extracted reporter citation: 681 N.W.2d 612. Docket: 16-0997. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4218687 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: quitably dividing and assigning the parties' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009)) (discussing finality of decrees, property division, and QDROs). Second, to implement the court's division of retirement benefits, a QDRO is entered that directs the plan administrator to make specified payments to the non- employee ex-spouse. Id. Thus, \"a QDRO is characterized properly as a procedural device required by federal law and entered to effectuate the property division made in the dissolution decree.\" Id. 10 IV. Alimony Having found a common law marriage, we turn to the questi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd somehow relevant, by the time the parties' intimacy declined, they had already established a common law marriage, and such marriage could only be ended by a decree of dissolution. See Stodola, 519 N.W.2d at 100. 11 Generally, a property division involving retirement benefits evolves in two steps. In re Marriage of Heath-Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016). First, the district court enters a dissolution decree, which is a substantive order equitably dividing and assigning the parties' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009)) (discussing finality of de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: neficiary until 2015, when Marsha left the family home. Likewise Steven informed his current employer, Alliant Energy, that Marsha was his spouse over numerous years and for varied reasons—health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, and designated pension beneficiary. In 2015, Steven changed Marsha from his spouse to his \"domestic partner\" on Alliant forms.6 Steven represented to multiple employers that Marsha was his wife by common law—beginning on November 24, 1993, and continuing until Marsha 6 In 2016, Steven denied Marsha was his domestic partner. 8 moved out in 2015. Accordingly, we believe the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f39375f6-9afb-471a-827e-95170286be3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4218687-4218687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4218687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-0997","extracted_reporter_citation":"681 N.W.2d 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: a party's research and advocacy. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (\"In a case of this complexity, we will not . . . comb the record for facts to support such arguments.\"). Accordingly, we decline to address his claim concerning the court's property division. 4 III. Common Law Marriage Iowa recognizes both ceremonial marriages, which are governed by statute, and common law marriages. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 616-17 (stating common law marriage \"has been recognized in Iowa for well over a century\"). The burden rests on the party claiming the existence of a common law marriage, here Marsha, to prove the uni"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f1049b-e83c-40a5-833b-26612e83d56e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4222089","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"900 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4222089 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 900 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4222089 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f1049b-e83c-40a5-833b-26612e83d56e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4222089","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"900 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19f1049b-e83c-40a5-833b-26612e83d56e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4222089-4222089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4222089","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"900 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: employment. During a permanency hearing on November 19, 2015, Mother reported that she was on medical leave from work. Id. at 50. Later, in June of 2016, Mother reported that she was unemployed. Id. Mother's unemployment and her refusal to comply with the Domestic Relations order requiring her to search for a job resulted in her incarceration from November to December of 2016. Id. at 57. Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). Mother's repeated and continued incapacity, neglect, or refusal to perform her parental dutie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4226232 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: CV-17-0175-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4226232 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a State Retirement System (\"ASRS\"). The dissolution decree awarded Vincent \"a one-half (1/2) portion of [Shanovich's] retirement including employer contribution and accrued interest as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution,\" to be reflected in \"a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] stating such provisions.\" ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that \"[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner paym"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution,\" to be reflected in \"a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] stating such provisions.\" ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that \"[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected.\" Conversely, the QDRO stated that if Shanovich withdrew from ASRS or died before retirement,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as of August 25, 2000\" plus interest. Neither party appealed. ¶4 Shanovich discovered the discrepancy between the decree and the QDRO as he prepared to retire from the City in 2015. He learned from ASRS that the QDRO entitled Vincent to one-half of his total pension upon retirement rather than one-half of his pension earned as of August 25, 2000, as set forth in the decree. 2 VINCENT v. SHANOVICH Opinion of the Court ¶5 Pursuant to Rule 85(A), which empowers a family court to correct clerical errors \"at any time\" after judgment is entered, Shanovich moved to replace the QDRO with one that complies with the decree."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4de68122-8531-4d57-b41a-277162ff8169","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4226232-4226232","title":"CourtListener opinion 4226232","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-17-0175-PR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tirement System (\"ASRS\"). The dissolution decree awarded Vincent \"a one-half (1/2) portion of [Shanovich's] retirement including employer contribution and accrued interest as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution,\" to be reflected in \"a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] stating such provisions.\" ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that \"[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner paym"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4228400 Extracted reporter citation: 86 F.3d 982. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4228400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: son, as the sole beneficiary. Bruce never changed the beneficiary of the policy to Sierra before he died in 2013. Litigation ensued, and the district court ordered Sun Life to pay the life insurance proceeds to Sierra. Because the divorce decree suffices as a qualified domestic relations order that \"clearly specifies\" Sierra as the beneficiary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), we affirm. I. In 2003, Bruce Jackson signed up for a life insurance plan sponsored by his employer, Samaritan Health Partners, and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. Sun Life Assura"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: interpretation may render the specificity requirements toothless,\" and concluded that \"[t]he pivotal question is whether the dissolution order ‘clearly contains the information specified in the statute.'\" Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan, 207 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000)). To the extent these courts undertake a contextual inquiry that examines the decree in its entirety when applying the statute, we do not disagree. That indeed is required. And to the extent any court means to adopt a \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ent Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), we affirm. I. In 2003, Bruce Jackson signed up for a life insurance plan sponsored by his employer, Samaritan Health Partners, and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. Sun Life Assurance Company took over management of Bruce's insurance policy in 2008. Bruce died in 2013. At his death, Bruce was insured for $48,000 in basic life insurance and $191,000 in optional life insurance. The question is whether Richard Jackson, Bruce's uncle, or Sierra Jackson, Bruce's only child, receives the money. When Bruce signed up for th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a80b425-6dd1-4a5b-aecb-7fd2316bec67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4228400-4228400","title":"CourtListener opinion 4228400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"86 F.3d 982","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: on those requirements. Here they are: A domestic order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(C). In addin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4229168 Extracted case name: In Re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 118 S.W.3d 829. Docket: 09-17-00254-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4229168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ings Plan arising out of Charles Ray Hall's employment with ExxonMobil as of March 11, 2013, that portion being a sum certain, together with any interest, dividend, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. H-6. All individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities and variable annuity life insurance benefits in the husband's name. The specific language of the decree awarded Sandra the following: W-5. A portion of Charles Ray Hall's retirement benefits in Exxo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecree\") entered by the trial court on September 23, 2013. The 2013 decree was silent as to the award of the community property ExxonMobil Pension Plan. The specific language of the decree awarded Charles the following: H-5. A portion of Charles Ray Hall's retirement benefits in ExxonMobil Savings Plan arising out of Charles Ray Hall's employment with ExxonMobil as of March 11, 2013, that portion being a sum certain, together with any interest, dividend, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: by this Court without hearing oral argument from either party. -v- STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from a judgment denying a request for a division of undivided property. The divorce decree was silent as to the division of the former husband's pension plan. The trial court nevertheless denied former wife's request to divide the pension plan. -vi- ISSUE Issue One The trial court abused its discretion by denying former Wife's petition for post-divorce division of assets because wife proved that the property requested to be divided was not divided by the Final Decree of Divorce. STATEMENT OF F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"acfdc33f-3558-4798-af8a-93b288f0b94d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4229168-4229168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4229168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09-17-00254-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 829","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): i (hereinafter \"Sandra\") and Charles Ray Hall (hereinafter \"Charles\") were married on November 20, 1974. In January 1982, Charles started working for Mobil Oil Corporation, now ExxonMobil. (RR 26) Charles eventually retired from ExxonMobil with pension and 401(k) benefits in February 2017. (RR 17-18) On November 4, 2008, Charles and Sandra were divorced. Charles was represented in that action by Karen Bennett. Sandra Embesi was unrepresented by counsel. Sandra filed a bill of review on October 19, 2012 under Cause Number C216,691 in the 317th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas asserting that Charles' c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4233684 Extracted reporter citation: 469 S.W.3d 314. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4233684 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orce on June 2, 2016, and William timely filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about \"180-plus thousand\" were not there. William explained on the recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about \"180-plus thousand\" were not there. William explained on the record that these monies were not in the NetScout 401"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about \"180-plus thousand\" were not there. William explained on the record that these monies were not in the NetScout 401k but were in his Danaher Corporation & Subsi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a908f6c5-acad-4db8-b6a8-4d593ab772f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4233684-4233684","title":"CourtListener opinion 4233684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"469 S.W.3d 314","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ne 2, 2016, and William timely filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about \"180-plus thousand\" were not there. William explained on the recor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4235466 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 03-17-00693-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235466 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: disposable retired pay as ordered in this order, AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Servicemember is specifically directed that he is not relieved of that obligation except to the extent that he is specifically notified that 100 percent of Former Spouse's interest in the retirement benefit has been directly paid by DFAS, and IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any election of benefits that may hereafter be made by Servicemember shall not reduce the amount equal to the percentage of the retired pay or the amount of the retired pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: red pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from being changed by a state court order. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Servicemember shall not merge his military retired pay with any other pension and shall not pursue any course of action that would defeat, reduce, or limit Former Spouse's right to receive Former Spouse's full separate-property share of Servicemember's retired pay as awarded in this order, unless otherwise ordered herein. Death IT IS ORDERED that the payment of the retired pay awarded in this order to Former Spouse CR 110 page 4"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: a retirement pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61, effective January 28, 2016. CR 121; RX-1 at 2; RX-1, Exhibit A. 3 Following a hearing, although the date thereof is not specified in the order, the court entered an order entitled Order On Clarification Of Domestic Relations Order [Military Retirement] (MRO) on February 17, 2016. CR 107-112. Thereafter, a \"final trial\" was held on March 8, 2017, at which the only witness was James N. Higdon, the military retirement expert retained by Appellant. RR at 14-46. Following the March 8 trial, the trial court issued a Memorandum of Ruling on May 17, 2017. CR 114. The trial court's Memo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38b0b764-6d1a-4c08-8a05-b4ba2cab4937","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235466-4235466","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235466","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"03-17-00693-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: pay does not preclude waiver of retirement pay and electing disability). The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) and the many cases construing it, both federal and state, prohibit our state trial courts from treating as 5 divisible community property that portion of a service member's military retired pay received pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61. 10 U.S.C. §1408(a)(4)(A)(iii). Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 594-595, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2031-2032, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989). See also, Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1400, 1402-1404, 197 L.Ed.2d 781 (2017); Hicks v. Hicks, 348 S.W.3d 281, 285 (T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ffe408-0ca9-4cd3-a064-1e2a72f4de45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4235517 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235517 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ffe408-0ca9-4cd3-a064-1e2a72f4de45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ffe408-0ca9-4cd3-a064-1e2a72f4de45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: upport based on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ffe408-0ca9-4cd3-a064-1e2a72f4de45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235517-4235517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"117422fd-1f18-4dc5-8c87-ceb38e99db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4235538 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Steel. Docket: 333569 Kent Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235538 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"117422fd-1f18-4dc5-8c87-ceb38e99db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"117422fd-1f18-4dc5-8c87-ceb38e99db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Sparks, 440 Mich at 151-152. D. EQUALIZATION PAYMENT Finally, we shall address defendant's claim on cross-appeal that the trial court erred when it refused to award plaintiff a share of the retirement accounts through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). At the hearing on his motion to clarify how the equalization payment would be made, defendant argued that the court should award plaintiff a portion of her award through a QDRO. He stated that he did not have enough cash to pay her the equalization payment. He argued too that it would only be fair that plaintiff should have to pay the tax penalty if she w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"117422fd-1f18-4dc5-8c87-ceb38e99db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s business—and plaintiff's rental home had an increase in value, but that the amounts canceled each other out. It stated that defendant would keep his commercial property, and plaintiff would keep her rental property. The trial court also divided the parties' retirement accounts. It found that the total value of the marital estate was $598,613. Although it recognized that a marital estate will normally be divided 50/50, it elected to award 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff. It explained that the marriage was short, and the parties did not have children. Additionally, defendant \"funded 95% or more of the marriage.\" It specifica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"117422fd-1f18-4dc5-8c87-ceb38e99db3d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235538-4235538","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235538","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: or earned during the marriage). As the Supreme Court of Minnesota has explained, when a business increases in value during a marriage as a result of one spouse's direct efforts, the increase is treated as a product of the marital partnership: The concept of equitable distribution is a corollary of the principle that marriage is a joint enterprise whose vitality, success and endurance is dependent upon the conjunction of multiple components, only one of which is financial. The nonremunerated efforts of raising children, making a home, performing a myriad of personal services and providing physical and emotional support are, among"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9888adc9-bf77-4c61-9e01-d7701d612c02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4235820 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235820 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9888adc9-bf77-4c61-9e01-d7701d612c02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9888adc9-bf77-4c61-9e01-d7701d612c02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: upport based on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9888adc9-bf77-4c61-9e01-d7701d612c02","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235820-4235820","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235820","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4eae1317-4212-4e07-a8c5-def9dc36c02f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4235841 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Steel. Docket: 333569 Kent Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235841 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4eae1317-4212-4e07-a8c5-def9dc36c02f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4eae1317-4212-4e07-a8c5-def9dc36c02f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Sparks, 440 Mich at 151-152. D. EQUALIZATION PAYMENT Finally, we shall address defendant's claim on cross-appeal that the trial court erred when it refused to award plaintiff a share of the retirement accounts through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). At the hearing on his motion to clarify how the equalization payment would be made, defendant argued that the court should award plaintiff a portion of her award through a QDRO. He stated that he did not have enough cash to pay her the equalization payment. He argued too that it would only be fair that plaintiff should have to pay the tax penalty if she w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4eae1317-4212-4e07-a8c5-def9dc36c02f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s business—and plaintiff's rental home had an increase in value, but that the amounts canceled each other out. It stated that defendant would keep his commercial property, and plaintiff would keep her rental property. The trial court also divided the parties' retirement accounts. It found that the total value of the marital estate was $598,613. Although it recognized that a marital estate will normally be divided 50/50, it elected to award 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff. It explained that the marriage was short, and the parties did not have children. Additionally, defendant \"funded 95% or more of the marriage.\" It specifica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4eae1317-4212-4e07-a8c5-def9dc36c02f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4235841-4235841","title":"CourtListener opinion 4235841","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"333569 Kent Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: or earned during the marriage). As the Supreme Court of Minnesota has explained, when a business increases in value during a marriage as a result of one spouse's direct efforts, the increase is treated as a product of the marital partnership: The concept of equitable distribution is a corollary of the principle that marriage is a joint enterprise whose vitality, success and endurance is dependent upon the conjunction of multiple components, only one of which is financial. The nonremunerated efforts of raising children, making a home, performing a myriad of personal services and providing physical and emotional support are, among"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4236199 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Frank. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4236199 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: WIFE shall receive the specific property allocated to her in accordance with exhibit A, *** This distribution includes the execution of a QILDRO awarding 1/2 of the marital portion of HUSBAND's pension from the FIREMAN's ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND, and a QDRO conveying HUSBAND's complete interest to WIFE in his Deferred Compensation Plan as of the date of Judgment. Until the date of final approval of the above QDRO and QILDRO, the WIFE shall remain as the beneficiary of these plans to the extent of the interests granted to here in this paragraph.\" (Emphasis added.) Section 3.2(d) further provided: 2 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed that when he attains the age of 63, the mandatory age for retirement, he would begin receiving his fireman's annuity, which would be divided with Joanne in accordance with the agreement. Until then, Thomas asserted that the disability benefits are not a retirement benefit but an income replacement to which Joanne was not entitled under the marital settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s Howe (Thomas), and the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement signed by the parties. The marital settlement agreement provided that the parties would split the marital portion of Thomas' pension from the Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund (fireman's fund) equally. 1 Thereafter, Thomas was injured while on active duty as a City of Chicago firefighter and began collecting disability benefits 1 We acknowledge that article 6 of the Pension Code provides that the term \"Fireman\" used in the article \"includes the female gender\" and applies \"with equa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f62006d6-7e0d-4536-aa7b-5478ee2e7feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236199-4236199","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236199","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order, yet the marital settlement agreement provided that Joanne's interest in his pension was to be transferred exclusively by a qualified domestic relations order. Thomas also observed that the marital settlement agreement 2 The Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund is governed by article 6 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/6-101 to 6-229 (West 2016)). 3 1-17"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"778b5fc9-c435-4ca3-b8bf-616627bfd0ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4236244 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4236244 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"778b5fc9-c435-4ca3-b8bf-616627bfd0ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"778b5fc9-c435-4ca3-b8bf-616627bfd0ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: upport based on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"778b5fc9-c435-4ca3-b8bf-616627bfd0ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4236244-4236244","title":"CourtListener opinion 4236244","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"335653 Allegan Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the \"Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan.\" Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the \"Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dacb04e-172e-483a-ad62-f2a555248f73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4237795","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4237795 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4237795 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dacb04e-172e-483a-ad62-f2a555248f73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4237795","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dacb04e-172e-483a-ad62-f2a555248f73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4237795","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dacb04e-172e-483a-ad62-f2a555248f73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4237795-4237795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4237795","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 \"Injury\" is \"harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4238845 Extracted reporter citation: 22 N.E.3d 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4238845 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1/12/17 Tr. 3). {¶7} Appellant's counsel responded by noting Appellant's last four payments covered the $2,000 per month owed in current spousal support but left little available for the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 3). Appellant argued efforts were made to put a QDRO (qualified domestic relations order) in place to release the Ameriprise account valued at over $200,000. Counsel said Appellant intended to use his half of the account to pay the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 4). The court opined Appellee could name Ameriprise as a defendant to obtain an entry ordering the company to pay an additional amount directly to her befor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: age. (1/12/17 Tr. 1). Appellee specified that only $800 went toward the arrearage since the magistrate's decision. (1/12/17 Tr. 2). Appellee said Appellant had assets to pay the arrearage, noting Appellant's counsel agreed he would use the parties' Ameriprise retirement account to pay the arrearage in full. (1/12/17 Tr. 2-3). She asked Appellant to put this promise on the record but opined he should go to jail as it 1 Meanwhile, on October 17, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to terminate spousal support, which remained pending during the contempt proceedings. -3- was too late to make up for his blatant noncompliance with court o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e time. He also contends the trial court failed to consider his recent full payments toward his $2,000 per month spousal support obligation while trying to make payments on the arrearage despite the decrease in his monthly earnings to $669.75 per month from a pension. {¶20} Appellant acknowledges this is not the place for contesting the spousal support ordered in the divorce decree or the denial of his motion to modify spousal support, neither of which was appealed. The magistrate ordered Appellant to purge his contempt sentence by paying the arrearage in full. The magistrate apparently believed Appellant had the means"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c3fa3454-05a8-42de-ac6b-a1a34ef39b35","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4238845-4238845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4238845","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"22 N.E.3d 1035","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: {¶7} Appellant's counsel responded by noting Appellant's last four payments covered the $2,000 per month owed in current spousal support but left little available for the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 3). Appellant argued efforts were made to put a QDRO (qualified domestic relations order) in place to release the Ameriprise account valued at over $200,000. Counsel said Appellant intended to use his half of the account to pay the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 4). The court opined Appellee could name Ameriprise as a defendant to obtain an entry ordering the company to pay an additional amount directly to her before paying Appellant (if there was a c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4240619 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: entry that reads:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4240619 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ortion of the pension benefits, generally described in the decree and \"more particularly specified in the Order Dividing Railroad Retirement Benefits to be entered after this Decree.\" Id. at 234. This court held the decree indicated an intention to render a QDRO in the future and the decree therefore did not render a DRO. Id. at 237. We concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the DRO after the trial court's plenary power over the decree had expired because the court's jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. Id. at 238. We hold the DRO was rendered as part of the April 1, 2015 Final Decree of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: that contains the parties' agreements dividing the marital estate. The agreement was signed by Stephen on January 20, 2015, signed by Carrie on February 11, 2015, and signed by both parties' attorneys. Among other things, the AID divides Stephen's military retirement benefits \"as more particularly specified in the domestic relations order signed in conjunction with this agreement and incorporated verbatim in it by reference.\" The Domestic Relations Order (\"DRO\") ultimately signed by the trial court is signed and \"approved and consented to as to both form and substance\" by both Stephen and Carrie and is signed by both partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Decree and the documents incorporated therein evidence a present intent to render a DRO at the time the Decree was signed. This contrasts with the facts in Araujo, upon which Stephen relies. In Araujo, the divorce decree awarded the spouse a portion of the pension benefits, generally described in the decree and \"more particularly specified in the Order Dividing Railroad Retirement Benefits to be entered after this Decree.\" Id. at 234. This court held the decree indicated an intention to render a QDRO in the future and the decree therefore did not render a DRO. Id. at 237. We concluded the trial court lacked jurisd"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d3c6650-379d-42f4-bc18-9efe45a52ca7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240619-4240619","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240619","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry that reads:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ial of his motion to declare a domestic relations order void, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the order, the order was signed in violation of his right to due process, and the order impermissibly modified the divorce decree. We hold the domestic relations order is not void because the trial court rendered the order when it signed the divorce decree and its terms were wholly encompassed in the decree. 04-16-00707-CV BACKGROUND In the underlying divorce proceeding, Stephen and his former wife, Carrie, reached a mediated settlement agreement. At a hearing held November 13, 2014, the trial court, the Honorable"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26f6c685-7618-4229-a00d-eb85efa9074c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240936","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4240936 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 17CA0255 Garfield County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4240936 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26f6c685-7618-4229-a00d-eb85efa9074c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240936","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26f6c685-7618-4229-a00d-eb85efa9074c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4240936-4240936","title":"CourtListener opinion 4240936","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y placed the children with their maternal grandmother. However, father M.M. moved from Florida to Colorado and sought custody of all three children soon after the case began. He said that he shared custody of the older two children with mother under a domestic relations order, and he asserted that he should have custody of M.A.M. because he was her psychological parent. The court placed the children with him, under the protective supervision of the Department, at the end of March. ¶6 In May, father M.M. entered into a stipulated agreement for continued adjudication under section 19-3-505(5), C.R.S. 2017, and the cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4241464 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4241464 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s without a hearing and without addressing appellant's objections. III. Discussion {¶8} We combine the assigned errors for judicial economy. Generally, the division or distribution of marital property is not subject to future modification by a court. A QDRO prescribes the division of retirement and pension accounts. R.C. 3105.171. The parties agree that the QDROs do not comply with the PSA of the parties. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by issuing the QDROs without responding to appellant's objections and without a hearing. Appellee argues that the QDROs are void because the trial court lacked"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: settlement agreement (\"PSA\") resolving all issues except for spousal support and attorney fees that were addressed through hearings by the court. The PSA also prescribed the terms for the QDROs, granting each spouse the marital portion of the other party's retirement plan. On October 20, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision adopting the PSA and granting the divorce. {¶3} On April 14, 2015, the parties filed four stipulated QDROs. The stipulated QDROs for appellant's United Airlines and Continental Airlines retirement plans were denied. On November 13, 2015, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and, on D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ellant's objections. III. Discussion {¶8} We combine the assigned errors for judicial economy. Generally, the division or distribution of marital property is not subject to future modification by a court. A QDRO prescribes the division of retirement and pension accounts. R.C. 3105.171. The parties agree that the QDROs do not comply with the PSA of the parties. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by issuing the QDROs without responding to appellant's objections and without a hearing. Appellee argues that the QDROs are void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue them. As a result, appellee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f37170cc-52de-47b5-a1fc-961c0b2c3ff9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4241464-4241464","title":"CourtListener opinion 4241464","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1720 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 John C. Oberholtzer Oberholtzer & Filous, L.P.A. 39 Public Square, Suite 201 Medina, Ohio 44256 ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.: {¶1} This consolidated appeal arises from the issuance of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\") journalized on January 23, 2017. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background and Facts {¶2} On May 13, 2014, plaintiff-appellee Deborah D. Fitzgerald (\"appellee\") filed a complaint for divorce against defendant-appellant John W. Fitzgerald (\"appellant\"). On April 14, 2015, the parties entered in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f36f3e2-101c-46d8-a6e7-5b972fe96501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243408","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4243408 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243408 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f36f3e2-101c-46d8-a6e7-5b972fe96501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243408","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f36f3e2-101c-46d8-a6e7-5b972fe96501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243408","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f36f3e2-101c-46d8-a6e7-5b972fe96501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243408-4243408","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243408","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 \"Injury\" is \"harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4243811 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243811 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ornsbury claimed that he was entitled to receive these monies despite his conviction. Additionally, Mr. Thornsbury's former wife, Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, claimed entitlement to the marital portion of Mr. Thornsbury's retirement accounts according to two qualified domestic relations orders entered by the Circuit Court of Mingo County in connection with her divorce from Mr. Thornsbury. Ms. Thornsbury's claim regarding the pensions was entirely derivative of Mr. Thornsbury's claim as she was never a participant in either retirement system in her own right. The relevant facts are as follows. Mr. Thornsbury has 2.15 years of service in the Wes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Thornsbury, pro se, and Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, by counsel Mark Hobbs, appeal the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's February 24, 2017, \"Final Order Granting West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board's Petition to Terminate Michael Thornsbury's Retirement Benefits.\" Respondent West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (\"Board\"), by counsel J. Jeaneen Legato, filed responses in support of the circuit court's order. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by ora"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tion thereof contemplated and each now contemplates that the service rendered by any participating public officer or employee shall at all times be honorable. The Legislature further finds and declares that honorable service is a condition to receiving any pension, annuity, disability payment or any other benefit under a retirement plan. In relevant part, \"less than honorable service\" is defined as \"[c]onviction of a participant or former participant of a felony for conduct related to his or her office or employment which he or she committed while holding the office or during the employment[.]\" Id. at § 5-10A-2(f)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca546398-dbbd-40df-b8ab-90ccab087d7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243811-4243811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: laimed that he was entitled to receive these monies despite his conviction. Additionally, Mr. Thornsbury's former wife, Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, claimed entitlement to the marital portion of Mr. Thornsbury's retirement accounts according to two qualified domestic relations orders entered by the Circuit Court of Mingo County in connection with her divorce from Mr. Thornsbury. Ms. Thornsbury's claim regarding the pensions was entirely derivative of Mr. Thornsbury's claim as she was never a participant in either retirement system in her own right. The relevant facts are as follows. Mr. Thornsbury has 2.15 years of service in the Wes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4243937 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Boyle. Extracted reporter citation: 88 A.3d 222. Docket: 1956 MDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243937 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sion at No(s): 14-0012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Appellant, Robert Edwards, appeals from the order entered November 14, 2016, which denied two motions filed by Appellant challenging a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that issued in September 2016. Following a hearing in November 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's motions, and Appellant timely appealed. Thereafter, Appellant failed to file and serve upon the trial court a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal as directed by the trial court. Thus, Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: llee was entitled to $500,353.56 from Appellant's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) account, with payment subject to wage attachment of $2,250.00 per month. Id. at 11. In addition, Appellant was directed to distribute all proceeds from his Vanguard retirement account to Appellee after first paying $8,149.50 to Mindy Thomas, CPA, for services rendered as appointed guardian of the marital estate. Id. Appellant did not appeal. In May 2016, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (May QRDO), which directed Appellant's SERS account to comply with the prior, equitable distribution order. See May QRD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: (s): 14-0012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Appellant, Robert Edwards, appeals from the order entered November 14, 2016, which denied two motions filed by Appellant challenging a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that issued in September 2016. Following a hearing in November 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's motions, and Appellant timely appealed. Thereafter, Appellant failed to file and serve upon the trial court a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal as directed by the trial court. Thus, Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9672b2e7-c412-4c9a-85e9-2541b6d21350","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243937-4243937","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"88 A.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: r Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-25 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the order entered November 14, 2016. In February 2016, the parties were divorced. Contemporaneously, the trial court entered an equitable distribution order. See Trial Court Opinion J-A26043-17 and Order, 02/11/2016. In relevant part, the court determined that Appellee was entitled to $500,353.56 from Appellant's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) account, with payment subject to wage attachment of $2,250.00 per month. Id. at 11. In addition, Appellant was directed to distribute all proceeds"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06d2edcb-3735-4cdc-ad15-1fbed35e78ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"719 A.2d 306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4243938 Extracted case name: JACQUELINE EDWARDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT EDWARDS. Extracted reporter citation: 719 A.2d 306. Docket: 1956 MDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243938 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06d2edcb-3735-4cdc-ad15-1fbed35e78ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"719 A.2d 306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06d2edcb-3735-4cdc-ad15-1fbed35e78ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"719 A.2d 306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mstances of this case, Appellant satisfied the spirit of Rule 1925(b), and therefore, we should not find waiver of that basis. Herein, Appellant timely appealed the trial court's November 14, 2016 order denying his petitions challenging the September 2016 QDRO order and the February 11, 2016 equitable distribution order. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant failed to file or serve a Rule 1925(b) statement with the trial court. Instead, Appellant filed a letter with this Court, setting forth his claimed errors. The trial court considered this letter and authored a res"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06d2edcb-3735-4cdc-ad15-1fbed35e78ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4243938-4243938","title":"CourtListener opinion 4243938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1956 MDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"719 A.2d 306","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: fied the spirit of Rule 1925(b), and therefore, we should not find waiver of that basis. Herein, Appellant timely appealed the trial court's November 14, 2016 order denying his petitions challenging the September 2016 QDRO order and the February 11, 2016 equitable distribution order. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant failed to file or serve a Rule 1925(b) statement with the trial court. Instead, Appellant filed a letter with this Court, setting forth his claimed errors. The trial court considered this letter and authored a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. Thus, appellate review of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a917255-deaa-44b5-802b-485b3f7c8f77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470","title":"CourtListener opinion 4244470","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4244470 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4244470 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a917255-deaa-44b5-802b-485b3f7c8f77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470","title":"CourtListener opinion 4244470","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a917255-deaa-44b5-802b-485b3f7c8f77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470","title":"CourtListener opinion 4244470","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5a917255-deaa-44b5-802b-485b3f7c8f77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4244470-4244470","title":"CourtListener opinion 4244470","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4 IN THE SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 \"Injury\" is \"harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b42b7e4-866b-478b-8af9-962e945471c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4245580","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 3","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4245580 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. VERNON CHARLES DONNELLY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: AG No. 3. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4245580 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b42b7e4-866b-478b-8af9-962e945471c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4245580","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 3","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b42b7e4-866b-478b-8af9-962e945471c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4245580","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 3","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: egard to the representation of two clients in separate matters. See id. at 97, 919 A.2d at 1195. In one matter, a client retained the lawyer to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order, which was necessary for the client to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. at 98, 919 A.2d at 1195. Despite his client's numerous requests that he do so, the lawyer failed to prepare the order before his client's remarriage, which rendered his client ineligible to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. 99, 919 A.2d at 1195-96. After the lawyer's client filed a complaint against him, Bar Counsel sou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b42b7e4-866b-478b-8af9-962e945471c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4245580-4245580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4245580","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"AG No. 3","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lawyer from the practice of law in Maryland for thirty days. Hill involved misconduct with regard to the representation of two clients in separate matters. See id. at 97, 919 A.2d at 1195. In one matter, a client retained the lawyer to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order, which was necessary for the client to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. at 98, 919 A.2d at 1195. Despite his client's numerous requests that he do so, the lawyer failed to prepare the order before his client's remarriage, which rendered his client ineligible to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. 99, 919 A."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9213b1f7-2c1d-4cd3-8d33-80f4c391383b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249164","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249164 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15–1456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249164 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9213b1f7-2c1d-4cd3-8d33-80f4c391383b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249164","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9213b1f7-2c1d-4cd3-8d33-80f4c391383b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249164","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n\" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose period th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9213b1f7-2c1d-4cd3-8d33-80f4c391383b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249164-4249164","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249164","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–1456","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e it constitutes an \"action\" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose per"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bbde5ef-ff52-4c94-a2df-ebe431369dca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249174","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249174 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249174 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bbde5ef-ff52-4c94-a2df-ebe431369dca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249174","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bbde5ef-ff52-4c94-a2df-ebe431369dca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249174","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something happen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bbde5ef-ff52-4c94-a2df-ebe431369dca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249174","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ually assaulted Stender. On March 25, Stender signed the second proposed decree upon the advice of Blessum. Stender testified at trial that she was a homemaker for most of her marriage to Phillip. She testified she was unaware of the amount in Phillip's retirement accounts, the state of the household finances, or the amount of alimony to which she might be entitled. She signed the decree based on Blessum's advice that the contents of the decree represented everything she was entitled to receive in the divorce. The final divorce decree awarded Stender $110,000 from Phillip's retirement account, half of the home furnishin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bbde5ef-ff52-4c94-a2df-ebe431369dca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249174-4249174","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249174","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15–2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll of the other accounts and the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if \"something"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249198 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16–1441. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249198 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: xpenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive substantial retirement assets through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with a value in excess of $100,000. In addition, the court ordered that Gary's interest in a defined benefits plan be distributed between the parties according to the formula established in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996). The district court awarded Linda rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 per month for three yea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Duffy was concerned that the language of the document could be construed to release Linda's award of retirement assets in the divorce decree. As a result, Duffy modified the document by inserting the handwritten phrase \"except pending QDRO concerning pet. retirement accounts per decree\" in three places on the \"Settlement and Release of Claims.\" Linda initialed each handwritten change, and she signed the document before a notary. Also on October 10, Linda cashed Gary's check for $27,000. 8 On October 11, 2012, Duffy dismissed the contempt complaint with prejudice. On October 22, Sporer dismissed his appeal in the divorc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n note was \"a fraud.\" The court cited the tone, substance, and circumstances of the note. The court emphasized that it would be absurd for Linda to give up her retirement benefit of more than $100,000, plus an unknown value of a share of a defined benefit pension, in exchange for $3000. Further, the court noted that it would be extremely unlikely that Linda would surrender the retirement award in settlement of the contempt action against Gary. Further, the district court reasoned that there was no plausible motivation for Linda to accept \"such a ridiculous agreement.\" According to the court, there was no prosp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"45b34db1-d5df-4a58-a8e7-d722ef3df20e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249198-4249198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249198","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16–1441","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): istrict court noted that dissipation of assets is a proper consideration. The district court found that Gary had unreasonably dissipated marital assets in contemplation of the dissolution. The court concluded Gary had unreasonably spent 4 $139,000 from a 401(k) account and $30,000 from the parties' home equity line of credit. The district court stated it would adjust the distribution of the remaining marital property as if these expenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249357 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.W.2d 156. Docket: 14–1201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249357 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ship with one of his clients, then assaulted her after the relationship deteriorated. The attorney pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury, a serious misdemeanor. See Iowa Code §§ 708.1(1), .2(2) (2011). In addition, the attorney did not finalize the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in this client's divorce case for two years, and he withdrew this client's fee from his trust account before doing the work. The Board filed a complaint alleging the attorney violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (lack of diligence), 32:1.8(j) (sexual relationship with a client), 32:8.4(b) (criminal act adversely reflecting on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ted a proposed divorce decree and sent copies to Doe and her husband. The stipulated decree of dissolution was filed and approved by the district court in March. It provided, in relevant part, that Jane Doe was to be awarded $110,000.00 from her husband's retirement plan and that \"[Jane Doe]'s attorney shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents to effectuate this transfer.\" At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, \"Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ate this transfer.\" At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, \"Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive the pension documents from [your ex-husband].\" That same day, Blessum wrote Doe's ex-husband asking him to forward his pension documents. Doe's ex-husband provided the relevant documents to Blessum two months later. Handwritten notes in 1Due to the sensitive nature of the complaint and the underlying facts, we use the pseudonym \"Jane Doe\" to refer to the complaina"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1095441a-c4c2-4142-857f-dd16509e32b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249357-4249357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14–1201","extracted_reporter_citation":"855 N.W.2d 156","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: Blessum received a faxed letter from Jane Doe's ex-husband himself. The letter read, Dear Zane, In regards to our QDRO we agree to the following changes to your draft submitted to [ex-husband's pension provider] dated December 21, 2009. Item #4: The Alternate Payee's [(Jane Doe's)] accounts effective date shall begin as of August 1, 2008. Item # 7 [Line struck through]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 5 (Signed) [Doe's ex-husband] [Jane Doe] 2 Both Jane Doe and her ex-husband had signed the letter at the bottom and initialed the line that had been struck through. The fax cover sheet from Doe'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce823b34-872b-45a8-933c-7411f54622d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0372","extracted_reporter_citation":"790 N.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249452 Extracted reporter citation: 790 N.W.2d 791. Docket: 13–0372. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249452 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce823b34-872b-45a8-933c-7411f54622d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0372","extracted_reporter_citation":"790 N.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ce823b34-872b-45a8-933c-7411f54622d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249452-4249452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13–0372","extracted_reporter_citation":"790 N.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: culate child support payments. Following the rescheduled trial, the district court ordered the marriage dissolved and determined custody, child support, and division of property. The court directed Kennedy to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"which will divide both of the accounts equally awarding [Stephanie Robinson] 50 percent of the balance.\" Kennedy never prepared the QDRO. Kennedy also acknowledges she neglected the matter, did not adequately communicate with her client, and was not ready for the initial trial date. The Board asserts that Kennedy violated Iowa Rules of Professional"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249618 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHRYN JUNE MORRIS AND DENNIS EUGENE MORRIS Upon the Petition of KATHRYN JUNE. Extracted reporter citation: 647 A.2d 812. Docket: 11–0118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249618 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing de novo whether district court properly interpreted dissolution decree); see also In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) (applying de novo review in determining whether QDRO fulfilled terms of dissolution decree); In re Marriage of Pals, 714 N.W.2d 644, 646 (Iowa 2006) (\" ‘A proceeding to modify or implement a marriage dissolution decree subsequent to its entry is triable in equity and reviewed de novo on appeal.' \" (quoting In re Marriage of Mullen-Funderburk, 696 N.W.2d 607, 609 (Iowa 2005))). The parties agree our revie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Pleasant, for appellant. John D. Hartung of Hartung & Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 WATERMAN, Justice. This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to specifically address survivor rights when dividing retirement benefits. The fighting issue here is whether the award of \"half of the . . . Marine Corps Retirement\" in the parties' stipulated decree of dissolution entitles the nonmilitary spouse to no more than fifty percent of the monthly retirement pay while the retiree lives, without survivor benefits. Trial counsel for Kathryn June Morris (Kathy), the petitioner, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: es, farmland, farm products, farm equipment, and other farm-related assets and liabilities. The stipulation further provided: 8. PENSIONS AND TRUSTS: Each party shall receive half of the Respondent's Marine Corps Retirement and any Trans. World Airlines pension received in the future. The Petitioner is awarded $31,500 cash in lieu of any interest she has in the Respondent's United Airlines Directed Account Plan, with the Respondent awarded any remainder. The Respondent is awarded his United Airlines Defined Pension Benefits, while the Petitioner is awarded all proceeds from her interest in the T.A. Cross Tru"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eb17623-5855-4265-ae55-ebebe4132426","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249618-4249618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249618","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"11–0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 A.2d 812","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: e Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Sherman W. Phipps, Judge. Kathryn Morris appeals the denial of her request for an order requiring Dennis Morris to designate her as the beneficiary of a military retirement survivor benefits plan. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT RULINGS REVERSED; AND CASE REMANDED. Anjela A. Shutts of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Diana L. Miller of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Mount Pleasant, for appellant. John D. Hartung of Hartung & Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 WATERMAN, Justice. This case should serve a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249705 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TAMARA D. VEIT AND GREGORY H. VEIT Upon the Petition of TAMARA D. VEIT. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 09–1312. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249705 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Rodney H. Powell of The Powell Law Firm, P.C., Norwalk, for appellant. Willard W. Olesen of Olesen Law Firm, PLC, Greenfield, for appellee. 2 HECHT, Justice. On further review, we are asked to determine whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) fulfilled the terms of a property division prescribed in a dissolution decree. Because we conclude the QDRO did not fulfill the terms of the decree, we vacate the court of appeals' decision and affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Tamara Veit filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage to Gregory Veit. On the day"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: mployee stock ownership account.1 The attorneys discussed the possibility of tax consequences attendant to this solution. Gregory's attorney assured Tamara's attorney there would be no tax consequences. Gregory's 1Gregory had an ownership interest in two retirement accounts at the time of the dissolution. One of the accounts was derived from Gregory's employment with Firestone and the other from his employment with Cemen Tech. The decree allocated to Tamara fifty percent of the Firestone account, but the Cemen Tech account was not mentioned in the decree. 3 attorney drafted a QDRO which Tamara's attorney signed on her behal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: COURT DECISION AFFIRMED. Rodney H. Powell of The Powell Law Firm, P.C., Norwalk, for appellant. Willard W. Olesen of Olesen Law Firm, PLC, Greenfield, for appellee. 2 HECHT, Justice. On further review, we are asked to determine whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) fulfilled the terms of a property division prescribed in a dissolution decree. Because we conclude the QDRO did not fulfill the terms of the decree, we vacate the court of appeals' decision and affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Tamara Veit filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage to Gregory Veit. On t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"807bf783-e971-4c38-a4e7-c23e05f44c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249705-4249705","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249705","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–1312","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: wake of our decision in In re Marriage of Brown, filed shortly after the district court issued its ruling on Tamara's motion to modify the QDRO. The parties now agree the QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division contained in a dissolution decree and may be modified later without affecting the finality of the underlying decree. Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 648–49. The decree provided Gregory \"shall pay [Tamara] the amount of $127,000 for her rights to any property not specifically set out by this Stipulation.\" Neither party appealed the decree, and the property divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249734 Extracted case name: IN RE MARRIAGE OF TRACY ALAN HOWELL AND LISA ANN HOWELL. Extracted reporter citation: 788 N.W.2d 833. Docket: 09–0084. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249734 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: efit pension plan, through his union membership. The entire amount of the benefit due Tracy from the Carpenter's Pension Fund was accrued during the pendency of the marriage. Lisa requested the district court to divide the pension benefits equally using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to provide Lisa survivorship benefits in the plan. In its decree, the court did not use a QDRO to divide the plan. Rather, the district court valued Tracy's interest in the Carpenter's Pension Fund at $3274.55 and awarded the fund to Tracy. Lisa subsequently filed a motion to enlarge or amend the decree. In her motion, she asked the court to re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e's employer contributions in given years by the applicable benefit rate in the corresponding years—the same formula used to calculate Tracy's ―benefit amounts‖ in Exhibit CC. The example then adds these figures together to determine ―Joe's Monthly Normal Retirement Benefit.‖ (Emphasis added.) In other words, the example employee's ―benefit amounts‖ are added together to determine the employee's monthly pension payment upon retirement. Applying Exhibit CC–1's example in interpreting Tracy's Carpenter's Pension Fund statement, we find Tracy's vested ―benefit amounts‖ of $3274.55 is not the present value of his pension but"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: J. Goldsmith of Gaumer, Emanuel, Carpenter & Goldsmith, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant. Allan C. Orsborn of Orsborn, Milani & Mitchell, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellee. 2 PER CURIAM. A spouse seeks review of the district court's division of her husband's pension plan. The spouse contends the district court undervalued the plan and failed to divide the plan properly in accord with this court's precedent. Because the trial court failed to properly determine the plan's value and divide it in accordance with well-settled law, we vacate that portion of the court of appeals' decision concerning the pension plan, aff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f00dade8-729e-4547-b3e3-3e0a3fab69f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249734-4249734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"09–0084","extracted_reporter_citation":"788 N.W.2d 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on plan, through his union membership. The entire amount of the benefit due Tracy from the Carpenter's Pension Fund was accrued during the pendency of the marriage. Lisa requested the district court to divide the pension benefits equally using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to provide Lisa survivorship benefits in the plan. In its decree, the court did not use a QDRO to divide the plan. Rather, the district court valued Tracy's interest in the Carpenter's Pension Fund at $3274.55 and awarded the fund to Tracy. Lisa subsequently filed a motion to enlarge or amend the decree. In her motion, she asked the court to re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4249851 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID A. BROWN and PAMELA S. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 08–0948. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249851 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appeals opinion affirming the district court's order dividing the petitioner's pension using the service-factor-percentage method. We are asked to determine: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in finding the dissolution decree was not final until the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") was entered and (2) whether the district court judge erred by adopting a QDRO that is alleged to be contrary to the specific language contained in the parties' decree of dissolution. We find the court of appeals erred in determining the dissolution decree was not final until the QDRO was entered; however, its adoption of a QDRO employing the s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Pamela specifically asked the court to insert provisions for the payment of interest on both her preretirement and postretirement death benefits. She also requested the court insert language that prevents David from taking a lump-sum distribution of his retirement benefits in order to deny Pamela her share of the pension. David filed a resistance to Pamela's motion. The court granted Pamela's motion and inserted her proposed language into the approved QDRO. David subsequently filed a motion to amend, enlarge and clarify the district court's orders adopting Pamela's proposed QDRO and granting Pamela's rule 1.904(2) moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge. Petitioner seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion affirming the district court's order dividing the petitioner's pension using the service-factor-percentage method. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. R. Scott Rhinehart of Rhinehart Law, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant. Francis L. Goodwin of Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, Sioux City, for appellee. 2 BAKER, Justice. Petitioner seeks further review of the court of appeals opini"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"94a3335f-17a1-4a50-9f2c-ee52ddae31e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4249851-4249851","title":"CourtListener opinion 4249851","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"08–0948","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: y awarded the parties in a dissolution becomes theirs the moment the decree is final. Id. This principle is not entirely true as applied to pension divisions. Because of certain anti-alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code, a QDRO must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce. See generally Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768–71 (Md. 6 1989). In Iowa, this QDRO must comply with Internal Revenue Code section 414(p) and Iowa Code section 97B.39, as well as the Iowa administrative rules. See 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2006"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4250184 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Sullins. Extracted reporter citation: 692 N.W.2d 360. Docket: 143 / 05-1040. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250184 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oyment plus a portion from his employer. Steven and Karen agreed to divide the IPERS account equally. To accomplish this division, they considered the \"investment value\" to be the value of the account, and they sought to divide the account by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that required IPERS to immediately pay Karen one-half of the investment value, or $19,100. Specifically, the stipulation required Steven to \"immediately pay $19,100.00 to [Karen] from his I.P.E.R.S. retirement account pursuant to a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Court.\" Steven and Karen also prepared an itemization of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: division of their marital property. The parties and their attorneys worked to resolve these issues, which ultimately resulted in a stipulated decree for dissolution of marriage. One item of property divided under the stipulation and decree was Steven's retirement account with the Iowa Public Employer's Retirement System (IPERS). Steven began working for the State of Iowa two years after the marriage. He worked at the Anamosa state penitentiary as a corrections officer, and continued to be employed in that capacity until after the divorce. Based on information provided by IPERS during the pendency of the divorce, Stev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: beneficiary, in the event of Steven's death. The \"investment 3 value\" represented the amount Steven would receive in a lump sum payment if he retired from his employment with the State of Iowa on the day the value was determined. Steven was vested in the pension plan, and therefore the \"investment value\" represented all of his personal contributions during the course of his employment plus a portion from his employer. Steven and Karen agreed to divide the IPERS account equally. To accomplish this division, they considered the \"investment value\" to be the value of the account, and they sought to divide the ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67cc6043-a8da-44f1-b06c-ef61280bc1b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250184-4250184","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250184","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"143 / 05-1040","extracted_reporter_citation":"692 N.W.2d 360","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t as a result of exposure to mace and second-hand smoke while working at the prison. IPERS approved his application in January 2001, and eventually informed him that due to the QDRO on file he would receive monthly benefits of $1,209.77, and Karen, as the alternate payee, would receive $962.31 each month. Steven was surprised to learn Karen would receive a portion of the monthly benefits, and he wrote a letter to Herman expressing his displeasure with the distributions from IPERS. As a result, Herman tried several times to modify the QDRO to provide Steven with a more favorable result. Ultimately, Herman's efforts wer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6f30a15-9cf4-4637-9bb9-411e4dd3912f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250288","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48 / 05-0507","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4250288 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BONNIE M. PALS AND JAMES J. PALS Upon the Petition of BONNIE M. PALS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 48 / 05-0507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250288 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6f30a15-9cf4-4637-9bb9-411e4dd3912f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250288","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48 / 05-0507","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6f30a15-9cf4-4637-9bb9-411e4dd3912f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250288","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48 / 05-0507","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's income increased. James asked the court to modify the decree to enter a QDRO dividing his IPERS benefits according to the provisions of the original decree, terminate his child- 4 support obligation, and order a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6f30a15-9cf4-4637-9bb9-411e4dd3912f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250288","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48 / 05-0507","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: scholarships and grants—$1,118.50. In the modification proceeding, James alleged the following changes since the time of the decree constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification: (1) he retired as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f6f30a15-9cf4-4637-9bb9-411e4dd3912f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250288-4250288","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250288","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48 / 05-0507","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ification: (1) he retired as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's income increased. James asked the court to modify the decree to enter a QDRO dividing his IPERS benefits according to the provisions of the original decree, terminate his child- 4 support obligation, and o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4250295 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA LEE SULLINS AND RAYMOND W. SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA LEE SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 695 N.W.2d 493. Docket: 42 / 04-0950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bute the IPERS account is to use the percentage method normally applicable to cases involving IPERS. See In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d at 680 (modifying decree, where present value of IPERS account was not ascertainable on the record, to order a QDRO using the percentage method to divide the future benefits when received). Under the percentage method, the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r appellee. 2 CADY, Justice. Ray Sullins seeks further review of a decision by the court of appeals affirming the property-distribution and attorney-fee provisions of a district court decree for dissolution of marriage. He argues: (1) the division of a retirement account was inequitable, (2) the court did not properly consider his premarital retirement savings, (3) the division of the parties' other assets and liabilities was inequitable, (4) he should not have been ordered to pay attorney fees, and (5) the court should have ordered a postsecondary education subsidy for the parties' daughter. We vacate the decision of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e factor among many, see id. (a)-(m). It does not automatically require Donna's share of the property to be reduced as a reimbursement for Ray's premarital contributions. We turn now to specifically consider the district court's treatment of Donna's IPERS pension. 6 IV. IPERS Pensions are divisible marital property. See In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993) (\"Pensions in general are held to be marital assets, subject to division in dissolution cases, just as any other property.\" (Citations omitted.)); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(i) (stating vested and unvested pensions are circum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8625074-1371-4c2f-b558-c1c39e980c94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250295-4250295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"42 / 04-0950","extracted_reporter_citation":"695 N.W.2d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): pensioner to pay a lump-sum amount representing the present value of a defined-benefit plan, normally makes the second method of division and distribution of pensions much more attractive for 2When the plan at issue is a defined-contribution plan, like a 401(k), the determination of the present value of the benefits and the distribution is less complicated. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 256 n.1. \"The value of such plans is the amount of accumulated contributions plus interest as of the valuation date. It follows that the value of the [marital] interest in defined contribution plans is the amount of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4250633 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LISA A. KOSTER AND RYAN W. KOSTER Upon the Petition of LISA A. KOSTER. Extracted reporter citation: 611 N.W.2d 489. Docket: 16-1583. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250633 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pecifically requests that she be awarded one-half of the difference in assets that the parties received which, according to her math, amounts to $46,950.00. 15 Excluding the retirement accounts that were ordered on the record to be distributed by way of qualified domestic relations orders, Ryan received assets in the amount $199,437.26 and Lisa in the amount of $105,538.47. One-half of the difference of these figures, $46,949.40, roughly amounts to Lisa's request. What Lisa's calculation ignores, however, is that the district court ordered \"Ryan to pay Lisa's entire attorney fees in the amount of $46,805,\" fashioning such as an equaliz"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: vision of the decree was \"exceedingly unfair\" and \"further evidence of the bias demonstrated by the trial court against\" her. First, Lisa appears to complain that Ryan was awarded the premarital value of a life insurance policy, 401k, and Roth individual retirement account, despite the fact that she stipulated to Ryan being awarded the same. Based on Lisa's stipulation, the district court found this equitable, as do we. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(k). Next, Lisa argues the district court's division of the remaining marital property was \"unfair and inequitable.\" She complains Ryan was credited with debts that arose after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): property-distribution provision of the decree was \"exceedingly unfair\" and \"further evidence of the bias demonstrated by the trial court against\" her. First, Lisa appears to complain that Ryan was awarded the premarital value of a life insurance policy, 401k, and Roth individual retirement account, despite the fact that she stipulated to Ryan being awarded the same. Based on Lisa's stipulation, the district court found this equitable, as do we. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(k). Next, Lisa argues the district court's division of the remaining marital property was \"unfair and inequitable.\" She complains Ryan wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5fa7366-6f4a-4054-9e6f-d803772d8492","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4250633-4250633","title":"CourtListener opinion 4250633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1583","extracted_reporter_citation":"611 N.W.2d 489","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y requests that she be awarded one-half of the difference in assets that the parties received which, according to her math, amounts to $46,950.00. 15 Excluding the retirement accounts that were ordered on the record to be distributed by way of qualified domestic relations orders, Ryan received assets in the amount $199,437.26 and Lisa in the amount of $105,538.47. One-half of the difference of these figures, $46,949.40, roughly amounts to Lisa's request. What Lisa's calculation ignores, however, is that the district court ordered \"Ryan to pay Lisa's entire attorney fees in the amount of $46,805,\" fashioning such as an equaliz"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4251651 Extracted case name: JOSEPH DINUNZIO v. CATHERINE DINUNZIO. Extracted reporter citation: 175 A.3d 601. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4251651 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e plaintiff keep as his sole property the coins and the metals he kept in his safe. The court further ordered that the plaintiff keep as his sole property the IRA listed on his financial affidavit and that the defendant transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), 40 per- cent of her John Hancock 401(k), valued as of the date of judgment. The defendant thereafter filed a motion for reconsid- eration and articulation, arguing, inter alia, that the court improperly treated the plaintiff's pension as an income stream rather than as property. The court denied the defendant's motion and this appeal followed. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eek on a second mortgage, and $95 in property taxes. The plaintiff's assets include a Navy Federal Credit Union account with a current ance of $15; a TD Bank account with a current balance of $19; and savings bonds valued at $1130. He also has an [individual retirement account (IRA)] with a current balance of $600. ‘‘The plaintiff's financial affidavit lists a total of $57,478 in liabilities. He has a USAA Visa with a balance of $14,920; a Navy Federal Credit Union debt in the amount of $25,000; a Lowes credit card with a balance of $1300; a Home Depot credit card with a balance of $400; a . . . debt in the amount of $9200 [that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IO (AC 39008) Sheldon, Bright and Beach, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff and making certain financial orders regarding, inter alia, the plaintiff's military pension. Held that the trial court having erred in treating the plaintiff's military pension as a source of income rather than as property subject to equitable distribution, the court's financial orders could not stand: our Supreme Court has held previously that vested pension benefits constitute prop- erty, and are not a source of income, for purposes of equi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8767a977-7cee-49bb-bcc0-fd61b57443df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4251651-4251651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4251651","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"175 A.3d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ,000 to her father. There is also a joint debt in the amount of $250 to the minor child's dentist. ‘‘The defendant's assets include a TD Bank checking account with a balance of $974 and a jointly held TD Bank savings account with a $3 balance. She also has a 401(k) account with John Hancock with an approximate value of $100,000 and a [United States] savings bond with a value of $744. ‘‘The parties first met in Bahrain. The plaintiff was there serving in the Navy and the defendant was a flight attendant stationed there. They married on May 17, 2003, and when the plaintiff retired from the Navy, they came to live in Co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4252900 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4252900 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: divorce decree on November 9, 2017.2 Appellant raises the following issues for this court's review: 1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not applying deferred distribution of the retirement benefits through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)[3] -- pursuant to 3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code -- or alternatively, to calculate the IRS penalty and taxes Husband would have to pay for premature withdrawal of retirement benefits[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not giving Husband credit for paying alimony pendente lite [(\"APL\")] for over"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: trial court entered an amended divorce decree on November 9, 2017.2 Appellant raises the following issues for this court's review: 1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not applying deferred distribution of the retirement benefits through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)[3] -- pursuant to 3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code -- or alternatively, to calculate the IRS penalty and taxes Husband would have to pay for premature withdrawal of retirement benefits[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not giving Husband credit for p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits.\" Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa. 393, 633 A.2d 589, 591 n. 3 (1993) (citation omitted). The actual qualifying of the domestic relations order is done by the employer's pension administrator. Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (Pa. 2007). -4- J. S53034/17 despite the fact that Wife had been gainfully employed full time for almost ten years subsequent to the parties' separation[?] 3. Whether the trial court erred in ordering Husband to pay alimony on a fixed basis, regardless of any potential future changes in inco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0180e8a1-b550-454e-b055-4b9fd29de305","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4252900-4252900","title":"CourtListener opinion 4252900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): a truck driver for various solid waste hauling entities. For the first half of 2006, Husband's gross pay was $37,548.13. Wife remained at home, raising the children and running the household. During the marriage, Husband had two retirement accounts: 1) a 401(k); and 2) an IRA annuity. In 2007, Husband received funds from a union settlement, the majority of which the parties agree to be marital property. In addition, the parties had a checking account and a savings account. All financial correspondence was sent to Husband's mother's home and not to the marital residence; Wife was not privy to the ongoing fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18551139-5548-4711-a81b-1fd73786b9a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4257541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4257541 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4257541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18551139-5548-4711-a81b-1fd73786b9a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4257541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18551139-5548-4711-a81b-1fd73786b9a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4257541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: elected to receive CRSC, which resulted in a diminution of his retirement pay and plaintiff's 50 percent award of that pay. See Megee, 290 Mich App at 561 (\"Plaintiff elected CRSC, which effectively discontinued his retirement pay that had been subject to the QDRO, halting payments to defendant.\"). The Megee panel observed the following concerning CRSC and the division of waived retirement pay related to CRSC, i.e., retirement pay that is not being received because of a CRSC election: \"The trial court here effectively divided plaintiff's CRSC and, although Mansell did not directly address division of disability pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18551139-5548-4711-a81b-1fd73786b9a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4257541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: both parties acknowledged that the language was awkward, but -2- explained that the intent was simply to address a scenario in which defendant became entitled to and accepted more disability benefits than currently being received, inversely diminishing the retirement benefits that were being divided and awarded to plaintiff. The purpose of the offset provision was to protect plaintiff in such a scenario. The trial court also discussed the offset provision with defendant in the following exchange: Court. \"All right, . . . Mr. Foster, you do acknowledge that if you were to defer any of your current military retirement pay or co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"18551139-5548-4711-a81b-1fd73786b9a7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4257541-4257541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4257541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rms of the judgment. *** We hold that a military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment's property division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary to the terms of the divorce judgment. Conceptually, and consistently with extensive caselaw from other jurisdictions, we are dividing waived retirement pay in order to honor the terms and intent of the divorce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a245838e-47ce-45cb-86f6-5832fc922a16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4258076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4258076 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4258076 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a245838e-47ce-45cb-86f6-5832fc922a16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4258076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a245838e-47ce-45cb-86f6-5832fc922a16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4258076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: elected to receive CRSC, which resulted in a diminution of his retirement pay and plaintiff's 50 percent award of that pay. See Megee, 290 Mich App at 561 (\"Plaintiff elected CRSC, which effectively discontinued his retirement pay that had been subject to the QDRO, halting payments to defendant.\"). The Megee panel observed the following concerning CRSC and the division of waived retirement pay related to CRSC, i.e., retirement pay that is not being received because of a CRSC election: \"The trial court here effectively divided plaintiff's CRSC and, although Mansell did not directly address division of disability pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a245838e-47ce-45cb-86f6-5832fc922a16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4258076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: both parties acknowledged that the language was awkward, but -2- explained that the intent was simply to address a scenario in which defendant became entitled to and accepted more disability benefits than currently being received, inversely diminishing the retirement benefits that were being divided and awarded to plaintiff. The purpose of the offset provision was to protect plaintiff in such a scenario. The trial court also discussed the offset provision with defendant in the following exchange: Court. \"All right, . . . Mr. Foster, you do acknowledge that if you were to defer any of your current military retirement pay or co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a245838e-47ce-45cb-86f6-5832fc922a16","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4258076-4258076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4258076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324853 Dickinson Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rms of the judgment. *** We hold that a military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment's property division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary to the terms of the divorce judgment. Conceptually, and consistently with extensive caselaw from other jurisdictions, we are dividing waived retirement pay in order to honor the terms and intent of the divorce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4259285 Extracted reporter citation: 245 F.3d 1321. Docket: 1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4259285 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: disbursement of benefits.'\" Id. (quoting Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001)). The Court emphasized three important ERISA objectives: (1) simple administration of plans; (2) avoiding double liability 7 This provision includes an exception for \"qualified domestic relations orders.\" See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). This exception was not relevant in Kennedy and is likewise not relevant here. 18 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 19 of 24 for plan administrators; and (3) ensuring that beneficiaries receive funds promptly. Id. at 301. Although the Supreme Court held that a plan administrator must distribute benefits in acco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Life into the registry of the district court. On appeal, all parties now concede that the funds should be disbursed to the Plan trustee in the first instance. The relevant Plan documents provided that insurance contracts could be purchased to fund death or retirement benefits under the Plan and that \"[t]he trustee shall be the sole owner and Beneficiary of each such Contract.\" Furthermore, the final application for the MetLife policy stated that \"Dr. Ignatius E. Akpele DB Plan\" was the policy owner and beneficiary. The policy also contained a \"Supplement to Application for Life/Health Insurance\" which stated: [FROM] THE I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: refused to pay the full amount of death benefits. The Akpeles' counterclaim also concerned the proper beneficiary 12 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 13 of 24 In his initial application for the insurance policy at issue, Dr. Akpele selected a \"pension whole life\" policy with a death benefit of $5,148,206. Under the policy, Dr. Akpele was required to pay an annual premium of $204,383.78. The policy set forth a death benefit and cash value provided that the required premiums were paid. However, the policy contained a non-forfeiture provision that if the annual premiums were not paid the policy would be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3a8a9a8-60c2-44d1-bbb1-05d72f3bd8f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259285-4259285","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259285","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 F.3d 1321","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: administrator of the estate of Dr. Akpele). Dr. Akpele purchased the policy in issue to fund the AIE Surgical Practice Defined Benefit Plan (\"Plan\") he had established as its sole member and trustee pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. * Honorable Harvey Bartle III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 3 of 24 As will be discussed in more detail below, the salient issues before this court concern whether the amount deposited into the registry of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4259770 Docket: 336303 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4259770 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: perty in their possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1; 531 NW2d 777 (1995). MCL 552.18(1)7 and MCL 552.101(3)8 define the circuit's court power to distribute pensions. Id. at 561-562. Accordingly, a trial court could treat 7 MCL 552.18(1) provides as follows: Any rights in and to vested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, or accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system, payable to or on behalf of a party on account of service credit accrued by the party during marriage shall be considered part of the marital estate subject to award by the court under this chapter. 8 MCL 552.101(3) provides as follows: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: home at 14851 Hubbell be awarded to defendant \"without any right, title, or interest by [plaintiff];\" (4) all other property, both real and personal be retained by the party then having possession; and (5) defendant receive 50% of plaintiff's City of Detroit pension. Plaintiff did not appeal this judgment. Nearly four years later, in 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The case was assigned to circuit court Judge Charles Hegarty under file number: 16-102110-DO. Both parties filed cross-motions regarding spousal support. Following a hearing on March 18, 2016, Judge Hegarty ruled that plaintiff's obligation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bca9a930-8d7c-447b-a3dd-e57fb61b5ccb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4259770-4259770","title":"CourtListener opinion 4259770","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: heir possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4260091 Docket: 336303 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4260091 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: perty in their possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1; 531 NW2d 777 (1995). MCL 552.18(1)7 and MCL 552.101(3)8 define the circuit's court power to distribute pensions. Id. at 561-562. Accordingly, a trial court could treat 7 MCL 552.18(1) provides as follows: Any rights in and to vested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, or accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system, payable to or on behalf of a party on account of service credit accrued by the party during marriage shall be considered part of the marital estate subject to award by the court under this chapter. 8 MCL 552.101(3) provides as follows: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: home at 14851 Hubbell be awarded to defendant \"without any right, title, or interest by [plaintiff];\" (4) all other property, both real and personal be retained by the party then having possession; and (5) defendant receive 50% of plaintiff's City of Detroit pension. Plaintiff did not appeal this judgment. Nearly four years later, in 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The case was assigned to circuit court Judge Charles Hegarty under file number: 16-102110-DO. Both parties filed cross-motions regarding spousal support. Following a hearing on March 18, 2016, Judge Hegarty ruled that plaintiff's obligation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8869554e-c8bf-4cb0-8830-020d68309407","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4260091-4260091","title":"CourtListener opinion 4260091","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"336303 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: heir possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4262299 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262299 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: res, pro se, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in finding no authority to reconsider its prior decision dismissing an earlier petition for appeal, in affirming the adoption of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), and in affirming the finding that petitioner was in contempt of court. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1 Although different from the percentage identified in the Rule 60(a) Order, petitioner and other documents calculate her share at 18.61673%. The precise calculations are unnecessary for resolution. 2 (b) The Participant's[, respondent's, Vested Accrued Retirement Benefit (\"VARB\")] is the benefit due the Participant as of the QDRO Determination Date. If, at the time benefit payout commences, the Participant elects a benefit in the form of an annuity, then the VARB shall be the annuitized benefit which would have been available to the Participant as of the QDRO Determination Date, calculated without regard to any minimum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties were divorced by \"Final Divorce Decree\" entered on November 17, 2008. Prior to the parties' separation, in 2002, respondent retired, and he began receiving his pension. The \"Final Divorce Decree\" addressed respondent's pension and provided that petitioner was entitled to one-half of his pension accrued from the date of the parties' marriage until their separation. The \"Final Divorce Decree\" further provided that petitioner shall continue to be designated as the [respondent's] surviving spouse beneficiary of his state p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9eb89a1c-4fd5-4a34-80c8-758fe606b47b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262299-4262299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e to petitioner for her share of the respondent's net PERS pension benefits as defined herein until the entry of the QDRO, at which time [petitioner] shall bear any tax liability for the amount that she is paid directly from the State Retirement Board as alternate payee upon the entry of the approved QDRO. In compliance with this provision, respondent paid to petitioner $368.80 per month.1 Five years after the entry of the Rule 60(a) Order, petitioner had not yet filed the required QDRO. Accordingly, on December 7, 2015, respondent filed a petition for a rule to show cause, in which he asserted that petitioner should be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4262355 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1643 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ember 25, 2003, provided that Wife would receive sixty percent (60%) of the marital portion of Husband's pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement J-S12015-18 System (SERS). The PSA stated that Wife's counsel \"will prepare the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO].\"1 Husband retired from the Pennsylvania State Police on October 25, 2014, and he began receiving SERS pension benefits beginning in November 2014. The parties, however, did not reach an agreement regarding an appropriate QDRO until 27 months later, on December 29, 2016, at which time a stipulated order was entered. That order was subsequently"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: itted). The actual qualifying of the domestic relations order is done by the employer's pension administrator. Id. 2 The QDRO provides, in relevant part: 8. . . . The equitable distribution portion of the marital property component of Member's [Husband's] retirement benefit, as set forth in Paragraph Seven (7), shall be payable to Alternate Payee [Wife] and shall commence as soon as administratively feasible and SERS approves a Domestic Relations Order incorporating this Stipulation and Agreement, whichever is later. **** 10. . . . Alternate Payee's share of Member's retirement benefit shall be deducted from member's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: L 09, 2018 James D. Hankey, Jr., (Husband) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, granting, in part, Ann Kris Hankey's (Wife) petition for special relief and directing Husband to pay Wife $24,975.00, the amount of pension benefits to which the court determined Wife was entitled. After our review, we affirm. The parties were married on December 31, 1992, and they divorced on October 1, 2003. The divorce decree incorporated the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA). The PSA, dated September 25, 2003, provided that Wife would receive sixty percent (60%) of the mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824072e3-afe8-4e5f-a733-39689a08aee0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262355-4262355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1643 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: mployer's pension administrator. Id. 2 The QDRO provides, in relevant part: 8. . . . The equitable distribution portion of the marital property component of Member's [Husband's] retirement benefit, as set forth in Paragraph Seven (7), shall be payable to Alternate Payee [Wife] and shall commence as soon as administratively feasible and SERS approves a Domestic Relations Order incorporating this Stipulation and Agreement, whichever is later. **** 10. . . . Alternate Payee's share of Member's retirement benefit shall be deducted from member's annuity payments by SERS and paid to the Alternate Payee pursuant to the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4262671 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1055 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262671 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l without need for assistance from Husband.\" Id. at 14. Additionally, the trial court indicated: [T]he trial court as part of its equitable distribution order divided an estate worth over $7 million not including certain pension benefits that are to be QDRO'ed, giving [Wife] fifty-five percent (55%). The trial court found that [Wife's] reasonable needs would be met with her current net income and her share of the marital estate, which is in excess of $3.8 million excluding the aforesaid pensions. Furthermore, the trial court finds awarding [Wife] alimony would be inappropriate given the income of the par"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o retain the collectibles located in the marital home. 9. Each party is to keep the household furnishings currently in their possession. 10. Cash assets are to be divided based on the values as of December 31, 2016[,] or as close thereto as possible. 11. Retirement accounts (other than defined benefit plans) are to be divided based on the values as of December 31, 2016[,] or as close thereto as possible. Id. at 5. The trial court directed each party to pay their own counsel fees and directed no alimony for either party. Id. at 5-6. The trial court set forth the following explanation for its distribution: -3- J-A05032"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: id. at 1-5. In furtherance of this division, the trial court directed the following: 1. Wife is to receive the real estate at 1 Pickering Trail, Thornton, PA. 2. Husband is to receive the real estate located in Michigan. 3. All four (4) defined benefit pension plans are to be divided by QUADRO. 4. Wife is to receive 55% and Husband is to receive 45% of the Stock Certificates held in Wells Fargo[.] 5. Husband is to retain the following automobiles: 1. 2007 Volvo 2. 1984 Mercedes 3. 2006 Ford Escape 6. Wife is to retain the 2004 BMW. 7. Each party is to retain the artwork currently in their possession. Wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"29b9c583-6660-46d2-8bfa-464f6c79bbb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4262671-4262671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4262671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1055 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ailing to give any consideration to Wife's evidence that Husband dissipated $4.4M of marital property? 3. Did the trial court erroneously neglect to divide the artwork acquired during the marriage? 4. Did the trial court err by assigning a value to Wife's 401(k) without the benefit of any expert opinion? ____________________________________________ 2 Specifically, on February 10, 2014, Wife filed a petition for contempt averring that Husband had not complied with the trial court's May 16, 2013, discovery order. -5- J-A05032-18 5. Did the trial court erroneously hold that a severance payment made prior to s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4265072 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHANTEL N. DOW AND DANIEL D. DOW Upon the Petition of SHANTEL N. DOW. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 17-0534. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4265072 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ight-year marriage to Shantel Dow. He objects to the court ordering him to pay six months of child support for the couple's fourth child. Daniel contends he is unemployed and cannot afford to pay spousal support. He also objects to the terms of the court's qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Upon our de novo review, we find no reason to disturb the court's rulings as to spousal support, child support, and the distribution of debts. We modify the order as to the terms of the QDRO, eliminating any requirement that Shantel be identified as a contingent annuitant and the parties' children as contingent alternate payees. We award no a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ue to reside in the marital home, the court ordered him to be solely responsible for the real estate payments pending the sale. The court found that under the Benson formula, Shantel was entitled to an appropriate percentage of the 168 months of Daniel's retirement benefits—all of which arose during the parties' marriage. The court also ordered Daniel to list Shantel as the death benefit beneficiary and list the parties' four children as contingent alternate payees. Daniel appeals, asserting Shantel should not have been awarded spousal support and the child-support amount was improperly calculated. He also objects to t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: employed as a school principal at or above his prior 2015 annual income.\" In In re Marriage of Duggan, 659 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Iowa 2003), the supreme court rejected an argument by a father who asserted his child support should be calculated based not on his pension benefits but on his actual earnings of zero dollars due to his retirement. The supreme court held it would be inappropriate to do so because the father \"offered no reason for his failure to obtain employment other than his desire to be retired.\" See Duggan, 659 N.W.2d at 562. The court further found the father did not suffer from any ailments or disabil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97f8b75b-e509-4be7-b743-272ada5c975e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265072-4265072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265072","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0534","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): listed monthly living expenses of $3849. Shantel's four-year average earnings at the time of trial was approximately $26,248 per year. She testified she had \"about $500\" in an Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) account and about $1400 in a 401k account. She listed monthly living expenses of $3118. Shantel opined Daniel would return to work as an administrator once the dissolution proceedings are complete. Daniel testified his \"interest [in doing so] has dropped\" and he is \"helping [his] eldest son get his feet on the ground in construction.\" The parties owned 220 acres of land and a house, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7fbc10-4842-40c7-bd34-874c78574284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4265566 Extracted case name: LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4265566 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7fbc10-4842-40c7-bd34-874c78574284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7fbc10-4842-40c7-bd34-874c78574284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ehicles. ¶4 After a settlement conference in April 2016, the parties reached a partial settlement. The parties agreed, in relevant part, that the marital residence would be sold after Wife had an opportunity to inspect the premises. They also agreed to use a QDRO specialist to divide community retirement benefits. All remaining unresolved issues were presented to the court at a bench trial held in January 2017. 2 LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY Decision of the Court ¶5 At trial, the parties stipulated Wife was entitled to a monthly Koelsch payment of $2,557.09.1 The parties stipulated this payment would be treated as part o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7fbc10-4842-40c7-bd34-874c78574284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erence in April 2016, the parties reached a partial settlement. The parties agreed, in relevant part, that the marital residence would be sold after Wife had an opportunity to inspect the premises. They also agreed to use a QDRO specialist to divide community retirement benefits. All remaining unresolved issues were presented to the court at a bench trial held in January 2017. 2 LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY Decision of the Court ¶5 At trial, the parties stipulated Wife was entitled to a monthly Koelsch payment of $2,557.09.1 The parties stipulated this payment would be treated as part of Wife's income for tax purposes. After taking the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e7fbc10-4842-40c7-bd34-874c78574284","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4265566-4265566","title":"CourtListener opinion 4265566","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: with Husband's Health Savings Account, from February 18, 2016 forward; as the trial court noted, Wife's counsel was provided with an updated insurance card confirming coverage as of February 18, 2016, as well as an explanation that the HSA account was not community property. Wife could have confirmed coverage and determined the HSA was not community property through other means. • Wife's request for reimbursement of automobile repair expenses in the amount of $1,145.91 when she knew the total cost was only $100.00. • Wife's repeated questioning of a deposit made into Husband's Arizona Federal Credit Union account; Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4270618 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tebbens. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-17-0777 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4270618 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: parties were represented by counsel during dissolution proceedings. ¶5 In brief, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage in October 2012, incorporating a MSA into the judgment for dissolution. In part, the MSA divided the parties' retirement accounts and pension plans. Thereafter, the pension administrator requested an order that reflected a specific dollar amount for Julie's distribution, rather than the percentage formula that was set out in the MSA. By this time, Robert was represented by new counsel. Eventually, the trial court modified the MSA over Robert's objection. Robert appealed this mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: gainst Julie Tebbens. In 1-17-0777 that malpractice action, Robert claimed that his former counsel failed to submit to the trial court a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that accurately reflected the parties' intent regarding the division of Robert's pension plan between himself and Julie. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred in finding his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Robert filed his complaint against defendants in October 2014. By this complaint, Robert asserted claims for legal malpractice and breach of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to the entry of an order clarifying the dollar value of Julie's share of the pension as Robert had originally requested. 2 1-17-0777 ¶6 In more detail, specific to the divorce appeal, Robert challenged the trial court's entry of a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) by the circuit court, which apparently divided the pension percentage-wise in such a way that Julie took more than the parties had agreed upon. In April 2015, we reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. In that cause, we recited the following facts, which are pertinent to the present appeal: \"In December 2009, Robert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6d62096-dfed-49c1-bf9f-b4de8772dd11","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4270618-4270618","title":"CourtListener opinion 4270618","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tion to clarify both the October 31, 2012 judgment, and the December 21, 2012 order, asking the court to clarify these ‘to conform same to the parties' agreement.' In support, Robert recounted that while Paragraph 7.5 of the MSA awarded Julie 50% of the marital portion of his vested, accrued benefit under the Fireman's Annuity Fund, and awarded Robert all remaining benefits and interest, that paragraph stated a percentage amount rather than a dollar amount for Julie. According to Robert, this percentage amount was insufficient for the Firemen's Annuity Fund and Benefit Fund of Chicago to divide the asset as agreed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4271121 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell. Docket: 1-17-0611. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4271121 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The WIFE shall receive the specific property allocated to her in accordance with exhibit A, *** This distribution includes the execution of a QILDRO awarding 1/2 of the marital portion of HUSBAND's pension from the FIREMAN's ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND, and a QDRO conveying HUSBAND's complete interest to WIFE in his Deferred Compensation Plan as of the date of Judgment. Until the date of final approval of the above QDRO and QILDRO, the WIFE shall remain as the beneficiary of these plans to the extent of the interests granted to here in this paragraph.\" (Emphasis added.) Section 3.2(d) further provided: \"The HUS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed that when he attains the age of 63, the mandatory age for retirement, he would begin receiving his fireman's annuity, which would be divided with Joanne in accordance with the agreement. Until then, Thomas asserted that the disability benefits are not a retirement benefit but an income replacement to which Joanne was not entitled under the marital settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Howe (Thomas), and the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement signed by the parties. The marital settlement agreement provided that the parties would split the marital portion of Thomas' pension from the Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund (fireman's fund) equally.1 Thereafter, Thomas was injured while on active duty as a City of Chicago firefighter and began collecting disability benefits under the fireman's fund. Joanne then filed a petition to enforce the marital settlement agreement and requested that Thomas be ordered to split his disability"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"38c2a0e7-d155-4abd-9c81-03286b38e115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4271121-4271121","title":"CourtListener opinion 4271121","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0611","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: al settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order, yet the marital settlement agreement provided that Joanne's interest in his pension was to be transferred exclusively by a qualified domestic relations order. Thomas also observed that the marital settlement agreement did not contain any reference to \"disability benefits\" and that exhibit A placed a present value on Thomas's fireman's annuity. In addit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4273233 Extracted case name: LACY v. LACY. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273233 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was awarded use of the fifth-wheel trailer pursuant to the court's temporary orders and the court found she sold it for her sole financial benefit without the court's permission prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The superior court accordingly did not abuse its discretion by implicitly fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ity determination and finding that Wife was not eligible for spousal maintenance. Although Wife stated she did not have enough assets to provide for her reasonable needs, she was apportioned half of Husband's 401(k), valued at $142,000, as well as half of his pension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ent evidence supports the superior court's credibility determination and finding that Wife was not eligible for spousal maintenance. Although Wife stated she did not have enough assets to provide for her reasonable needs, she was apportioned half of Husband's 401(k), valued at $142,000, as well as half of his pension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e61f1a5-ba25-4e52-9d29-0de9338a0ce1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273233-4273233","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273233","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was awarded use of the fifth-wheel trailer pursuant to the court's temporary orders and the court found she sold it for her sole financial benefit without the court's permission prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The superior court accordingly did not abuse its discretion by implicitly fin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c2e5970-71c7-4e42-a209-2a1cd01c838a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273505","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4273505 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340123 Otsego Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273505 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c2e5970-71c7-4e42-a209-2a1cd01c838a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273505","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c2e5970-71c7-4e42-a209-2a1cd01c838a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273505","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an \"attachment\" and appeared to be more of a \"peer\" relationship. II. ADJUDICATION A. STANDARD OF RE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c2e5970-71c7-4e42-a209-2a1cd01c838a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273505-4273505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273505","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: m the home after the snowmobile accident, respondent was homeless. The record reflects that she was living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an \"attachment\" and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6ddedd9-0a03-41bc-b9df-aac80c9f2a4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273897","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4273897 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340123 Otsego Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273897 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6ddedd9-0a03-41bc-b9df-aac80c9f2a4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273897","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6ddedd9-0a03-41bc-b9df-aac80c9f2a4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273897","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an \"attachment\" and appeared to be more of a \"peer\" relationship. II. ADJUDICATION A. STANDARD OF RE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6ddedd9-0a03-41bc-b9df-aac80c9f2a4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4273897-4273897","title":"CourtListener opinion 4273897","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340123 Otsego Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: m the home after the snowmobile accident, respondent was homeless. The record reflects that she was living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an \"attachment\" and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4274635 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman. Extracted reporter citation: 965 P.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274635 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e property equitably.' \"4 \"We review the first and second steps, which involve factual findings ‘as to the parties' intent, actions, and contributions 3 Gloria filed a subsequent appeal challenging the denial of her request for a stay of enforcement of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order governing her PERS benefits; the two appeals were consolidated. Gloria does not expand on this argument in her briefs, however, and we do not consider it. See Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1, 20 (Alaska 1998) (\"Despite our solicitude for pro se litigants, we must conclude that he has waived the claim by failing to brief it adequately.\"). 4 Wagner v. Wagner, 38"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: infree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. MAASSEN, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A husband and wife divorced after 40 years of marriage. The wife appeals the superior court's decision to equally divide their marital property, which consisted primarily of retirement benefits and debt. The superior court declined to consider how the couple's Social Security benefits affected a fair distribution, believing that our case law precluded it from doing so. But we hold that although federal law prohibited any allocation of the parties' Social Security benefits, the court could consider them as evidence of the parties' financial condi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: thority,\"2 and 13 years in the federal civil service. He retired in 2012. He received Veterans Administration (VA) disability benefits of $133 per month, Social Security disability benefits of $2,081 per month, and a Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension benefit of approximately $360 per month. Gloria had worked for the State of Alaska for approximately 35 years before retiring in 2009. She received a monthly benefit from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in the gross amount of $5,762. She testified that she would 1 Between 2000 and 2007 the parties lived in different parts of the house as \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f53a30ac-44b9-4742-b133-5c08a635de85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274635-4274635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274635","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"965 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: equitably.' \"4 \"We review the first and second steps, which involve factual findings ‘as to the parties' intent, actions, and contributions 3 Gloria filed a subsequent appeal challenging the denial of her request for a stay of enforcement of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order governing her PERS benefits; the two appeals were consolidated. Gloria does not expand on this argument in her briefs, however, and we do not consider it. See Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1, 20 (Alaska 1998) (\"Despite our solicitude for pro se litigants, we must conclude that he has waived the claim by failing to brief it adequately.\"). 4 Wagner v. Wagner, 38"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4274845 Extracted case name: TRACY M. THOMASI v. EDWARD J. THOMASI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274845 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ly taking into con- sideration his receipt of a pension; and (4) by determining that the dissolution agreement requires him to make pension payments to the plaintiff as of the date of the marital dissolution even though the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) contemplated by their agreement was not then in place. We agree with the trial court that a fair reading of the agreement requires the defendant to begin making payments from his pen- sion to the plaintiff as of the date of the dissolution. We do not believe, however, that the record supports the court's finding that the defendant's loss of employ- ment wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the benefit earned as of the date of marriage and subtract[ing] it from the benefit earned as of the date of divorce. . . . [T]he difference would be what they call the marital portion.'' See generally E. Brandt, ‘‘Valuation, Alloca- tion, and Distribution of Retirement Plans at Divorce: Where Are We?'' 35 Fam. L.Q. 469, 476–81 (2001); M. Snyder, ‘‘Challenges in Valuing Pension Plans,'' 35 Fam. L.Q. 235, 249 (2001). In her postjudgment motions, the plaintiff, using the subtraction method for determining the marital portion of the defendant's pension and the data provided by the State Retirement Services Division, determined th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eller, Prescott and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from certain postjudgment orders of the trial court regarding the division of the defendant's defined benefit pension plan. She claimed that the trial court erred in determining that the term ‘‘marital portion,'' as used in the parties' marital dissolution agreement regarding a division of the defendant's defined benefit pen- sion plan, clearly and unambiguously provided for the coverture method to be utilized in calculating the marital portion. The defendant filed a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae127f72-d275-4e33-812b-2ca3236a8872","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274845-4274845","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274845","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: n relevant part: ‘‘Please be advised that [the state employees retirement system] is a governmental retirement plan and, as such, is exempt under United States Code, Title 29, Section 1003 from the federal requirements of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) as they pertain to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. However, [the state employees retirement system] will divide a member's benefit in recognition of child or spousal support obligations when so ordered by a Connecticut court . . . .'' See footnote 3 of this opinion. 6 Paragraph 9C of the parties' marital dissolution agreement concerns the division"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8b750d-34df-4368-b751-68b85d6b17f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 S.W.3d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4274887 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Armstrong. Extracted reporter citation: 538 S.W.3d 476. Docket: W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274887 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8b750d-34df-4368-b751-68b85d6b17f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 S.W.3d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8b750d-34df-4368-b751-68b85d6b17f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 S.W.3d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e trial court did not err in finding that Wife failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the final decree was void.7 F. Request for Alternate Relief In her Rule 60.02 motion, Wife sought alternate relief requesting that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") distributing Husband's retirement account. Because a PSA is a contract, it \"must be interpreted and enforced according to [its] plain terms.\" Anderson v. Harrison, No. 02A01-9805-GS-00132, 1999 WL 5057, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 1999). The PSA contains no specific provision regarding the distribution of retirement accounts. It does, however, co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8b750d-34df-4368-b751-68b85d6b17f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 S.W.3d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ry block. Wife's signature, however, does not appear on page six or on any of the preceding pages. In her motion, Wife sought alternate relief, namely that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order awarding her an equitable share of Husband's retirement account because no provision was made for it in the PSA or elsewhere in the final divorce decree. Husband filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment as well as a statement of undisputed facts on July 27, 2016, arguing that Wife did, in fact, sign the PSA. In support of his motion, he relied on a certified copy of the divorce file that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b8b750d-34df-4368-b751-68b85d6b17f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4274887-4274887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4274887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 S.W.3d 476","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urt did not err in finding that Wife failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the final decree was void.7 F. Request for Alternate Relief In her Rule 60.02 motion, Wife sought alternate relief requesting that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") distributing Husband's retirement account. Because a PSA is a contract, it \"must be interpreted and enforced according to [its] plain terms.\" Anderson v. Harrison, No. 02A01-9805-GS-00132, 1999 WL 5057, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 1999). The PSA contains no specific provision regarding the distribution of retirement accounts. It does, however, co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4275575 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4275575 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from the date of the marriage through the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. (Emphasis added) (the \"Agreement provision\"). The parties married in 1987 when the former husband was employed by the Tam"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ision. In 2013, the trial court entered a final judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the parties' mediated settlement agreement (the \"Agreement\"). The Agreement contained a provision for the equitable distribution of the Former Husband's pension, which provides in pertinent part: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the parties' mediated settlement agreement (the \"Agreement\"). The Agreement contained a provision for the equitable distribution of the Former Husband's pension, which provides in pertinent part: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8e075b8-62b5-4128-9cd5-2d6d781ae0a6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4275575-4275575","title":"CourtListener opinion 4275575","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from the date of the marriage through the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. (Emphasis added) (the \"Agreement provision\"). The parties married in 1987 when the former husband was employed by the Tam"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0076a9f-c501-4388-a6ac-89a629f3b003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276658","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4276658 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 206 WDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4276658 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0076a9f-c501-4388-a6ac-89a629f3b003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276658","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0076a9f-c501-4388-a6ac-89a629f3b003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276658","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: easure of correction was undertaken. Notwithstanding, even if no such order existed, there is no way to know exactly what [Ms. Brown] would or would not have foregone, or received in further negotiations with her ex-husband prior to the January 24, 2012, QDRO, so that any claim to the contrary would be wholly speculative. It is for the same reasons enumerated above that [Ms. Brown] cannot prove that her claim in the underlying divorce action was a viable one with respect to the Slippery Rock Borough Pension Plan. Stated differently, [Ms. Brown] has no ability to prove her \"case within a case,\" if only bec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0076a9f-c501-4388-a6ac-89a629f3b003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276658","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: amages issue, the trial court explains: In this case, the damages sought by [Ms. Brown] are speculative at best. The amount [Ms. Brown] claims in damages in her Second Amended Complaint is that which she would J-A21005-17 receive under her ex-husband's Pension, in the event said Pension was available to her. However, as previously stated, [Ms. Brown's] ex-husband's Pension would not have been available to her with or without Attorney Boyer's advice. That is, no action or inaction of [Ms. Brown's] counsel would have resulted in [Ms. Brown's] ability to receive her ex-husband's Pension in any form. Therefore,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0076a9f-c501-4388-a6ac-89a629f3b003","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276658-4276658","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276658","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ently, no change in negotiation tactic would have provided her with a separate annuity. In fact, [Ms. Brown] did have the opportunity to continue negotiations well after the acknowledgement of the mistake on January 24, 2012, and thus a new May 7, 2015, \"Domestic Relations Order\" was entered. See Butler County Family Court Docket No. 2010-90027-D. While this may not reflect everything [Ms. Brown] desired to receive in the divorce proceedings, it does represent to this [c]ourt that some measure of correction was undertaken. Notwithstanding, even if no such order existed, there is no way to know exactly what [Ms. Brown] would o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5cfa2b34-2d56-4c32-8901-ee4a2bf982e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"146 A.3d 795","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4276659 Extracted reporter citation: 146 A.3d 795. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4276659 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5cfa2b34-2d56-4c32-8901-ee4a2bf982e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"146 A.3d 795","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5cfa2b34-2d56-4c32-8901-ee4a2bf982e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"146 A.3d 795","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er ex- husband's [p]ension [p]lan did not provide her with a separate annuity . . . there is no way to know exactly what [Appellant] would or would not have foregone, or received in further negotiations with her ex-husband prior to the January 24, 2012 [] QDRO\". Id. However, Appellant's second amended complaint asserts . . . if [Appellant] had known that the Slippery Rock Borough Police Pension Plan was not a qualified plan, and that she would not be entitled to a separate annuity payable on her ex-husband's earliest retirement date, which would survive his death, then she would have been in a position to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5cfa2b34-2d56-4c32-8901-ee4a2bf982e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"146 A.3d 795","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ulted in [Appellant's] ability to receive her ex-husband's [p]ension in any form\" and \"no change in negotiation tactic[s] would have provided [Appellant] with a separate annuity\". Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/17, at 5. It is true that Appellant's ex-husband's pension plan was not a qualified ERISA1 plan; therefore, Appellant was not able to receive the agreed-upon annuity. However, had Appellant known that she was unable to receive a separate annuity, she may have been able to negotiate other terms that would have provided her with the financial security that she sought. The trial court concluded that, \"even if arm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5cfa2b34-2d56-4c32-8901-ee4a2bf982e5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4276659-4276659","title":"CourtListener opinion 4276659","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"146 A.3d 795","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: abile joins this concurring statement. ____________________________________________ 2 The trial court noted that, after counsel's mistake was uncovered, Appellant did have the opportunity to continue negotiations with her former husband and enter into a new domestic relations order. Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/17, at 5. The trial court goes on to conclude \"[w]hile [the new order] may not reflect everything that [Appellant] desired to receive in the divorce proceedings, it does represent to [the trial court] that some measure of correction was undertaken.\" Id. I do not believe that the fact that a new order was negotiated after the pensi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4277379 Extracted reporter citation: 119 A.3d 382. Docket: 597 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4277379 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in his income to calculate child support, (3) ordering him to make direct payments to Wife, (4) failing to consider the tax consequences of the lump sum and monthly payments, (5) failing to require Wife's payment from his retirement to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), (6) failing to give him credit toward the lump sum because he had paid child support, alimony pendente lite, and mortgage contributions based on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sed on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and separated on February 14, 2010. Husband's Navy pension is in pay status. A final decree in divorce was entered on January 14, 2014. The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal have been summarized by the trial court in its opinions filed March 7, 2017, and May 31, 2017. For purposes of our discussion, we reiterate the court's summaries, as abbreviated, below: By way of background, a Master'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ome to calculate child support, (3) ordering him to make direct payments to Wife, (4) failing to consider the tax consequences of the lump sum and monthly payments, (5) failing to require Wife's payment from his retirement to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), (6) failing to give him credit toward the lump sum because he had paid child support, alimony pendente lite, and mortgage contributions based on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf07806e-80a5-4d84-a0e4-ae386e271896","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4277379-4277379","title":"CourtListener opinion 4277379","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"597 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"119 A.3d 382","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: below: By way of background, a Master's Hearing in regard to Equitable Distribution was held on August 31, 2012; October 12, 2012; December 9, 2012; supplemented by an Order of Court dated March 5, 2013. A Master's Report and Recommendation in regard to Equitable Distribution was filed on June 25, 2013. … Subsequently, Husband filed Exceptions on July 10, 2013, and Amended Exceptions on July 15, 2013. … An Amended Master's Report on Equitable Distribution was issued on November 19, 2013. … -2- J-S70042-17 On November 20, 2013, Husband filed Exceptions to the Amended Master's Report. On December 30, 2013, the [trial co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4278718 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seders. Extracted reporter citation: 740 N.E.2d 265. Docket: 2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4278718 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the parties appeared in court and entered an agreement regarding the divorce into the record. After the hearing, the trial court filed an order directing Nancy's attorney to prepare and submit the divorce decree; Jay's attorney was directed to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\") and other orders to transfer accounts. On October 8, 2013, Nancy's counsel filed a notice of presentation of final judgment and decree of divorce, and noted that she had been asked by Jay's attorney to make changes in the decree that were inaccurate based on the agreement that had been read into the record. The court then ordered Jay to submi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eene No. 2013-CA-77, 2014-Ohio-5798. {¶ 8} On January 28, 2015, Nancy filed a motion for contempt and a request for attorney fees with the trial court. The contempt motion was based on several matters: (1) Jay's alleged improper transfer of funds into her retirement account without her consent or knowledge; (2) Jay's alleged violation of the divorce decree when he attempted to include assets that had been awarded to her within his property settlement payments; (3) Jay's refusal to sign a promissory note that had been presented to him and his substitution of his own modified note; and (4) Jay's failure to comply with provis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he case. See In re Mooney, 812 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2016). See also In re Gardner, No. 12-12485 HRT, 2013 WL 3804594, *4 (Bankr. D.Colo., July 19, 2013) (rejecting debtor's claim for exemption of HSA funds, stating that it \"cannot stretch the definition of ‘pension or retirement plan or deferred compensation plan' to embrace the funds held in an HSA\"). {¶ 57} The trial court, thus, correctly concluded that Jay's HSA was not a retirement account. Although 26 U.S.C. 223(f)(4)(C) removes the 20% penalty for persons who are eligible for Medicare, that does not change the conclusion that the funds in the HSA were not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24e5611a-52b3-477a-9c92-cd88c101a97d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278718-4278718","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278718","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"740 N.E.2d 265","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: y $11,000 for an expert Nancy hired to work with the IRS for a refund of a penalty payment of excise tax and to testify; $10,000 for an attorney Nancy hired to advise her on the promissory note and to testify; and $1,250 for an attorney who testified about ERISA matters. The court also ordered Jay to pay Nancy's counsel $40,000 of more than $99,000 in attorney fees incurred for filing contempt motions and in defending against Jay's contempt motions. Finally, the court ordered Jay to pay Nancy $15,000 for fees incurred in connection with Jay's appeal. {¶ 16} Jay timely appealed from the trial court's decision."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4278753 Extracted reporter citation: 154 S.W.3d 93. Docket: of years used. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4278753 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ld that Pelloat timely perfected an appeal only as to the August 16 and 17, 2011 judgments. Id. Pelloat presented no challenges unique to the judgments nunc pro tunc. Id. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *2. In 2015, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Pelloat II). Pelloat participated in the hearing. Id. at *2. Pelloat's appeal from the QDRO was transferred pursuant to a docket equalization order. Id. at *1 n.1. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held: (1) the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng despite Pelloat's request to conduct discovery; (2) Pelloat waived his complaint regarding insufficient notice of the subject of the telephone hearing; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the appropriate formula to 2 Pelloat's retirement account; (4) Pelloat could not collaterally attack the property division in the QDRO appeal; (5) Pelloat failed to preserve his complaints concerning actions taken by his ex-wife's attorney with respect to the QDRO. Id. at *2-4. On October 16, 2015, the case that is the subject of this appeal commenced with the filing by Pelloat of a petition for a bill of re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e decree must be set aside because of extrinsic fraud; (3) the divorce decree must be set aside due to official mistake in failing to provide notice of judgment and the QDRO must be set aside due to official mistake in applying the formula for dividing his pension; (4) the divorce decree and the judgments nunc pro tunc are void because Pelloat was not present and he was not notified that they had been signed; and (5) Pelloat was deprived of due process through official antagonism and bias against Pelloat throughout the divorce proceedings. 5 Abuse of Discretion As the petitioner, Pelloat bore the burden to p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5841abc6-9a5c-442d-8e52-ff43e5d065f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4278753-4278753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4278753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years used","extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lloat timely perfected an appeal only as to the August 16 and 17, 2011 judgments. Id. Pelloat presented no challenges unique to the judgments nunc pro tunc. Id. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *2. In 2015, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Pelloat II). Pelloat participated in the hearing. Id. at *2. Pelloat's appeal from the QDRO was transferred pursuant to a docket equalization order. Id. at *1 n.1. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held: (1) the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4279163 Extracted case name: COA MELISSA CHRISTINE BLACK WEAVER APPELLANT v. RICHARD FRANKLIN WEAVER APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4279163 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y payments of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor performed a thorough analysis of the Ferguson factors and specifically addressed the tax consequences associated with the distribution. He correctly noted that the issue of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: concern, with respect to the distribution, was the real property, and Melissa's main concern was money. The court also awarded Melissa periodic monthly alimony payments of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: le argument on appeal is that the trial court incorrectly found that there were no tax consequences attributable to the distribution of the marital property. She asserts that most of the marital estate that was distributed to her consisted of retirement and pension funds, which were subject to taxes in order to liquidate those assets. She notes that Richard received the real property. She cites Louk v. Louk, 761 So. 2d 878, 883 (¶¶12-13) (Miss. 2000), arguing that the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in that case since it did not do an analysis of the Ferguson factors and did not consi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a865d8-15c0-458e-a355-f170daa2a454","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4279163-4279163","title":"CourtListener opinion 4279163","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor performed a thorough analysis of the Ferguson factors and specifically addressed the tax consequences associated with the distribution. He correctly noted that the issue of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97da4dc0-bdef-4623-984a-ca4e28bb445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185","title":"CourtListener opinion 4281185","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA17-787","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4281185 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA17-787. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4281185 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97da4dc0-bdef-4623-984a-ca4e28bb445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185","title":"CourtListener opinion 4281185","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA17-787","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97da4dc0-bdef-4623-984a-ca4e28bb445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185","title":"CourtListener opinion 4281185","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA17-787","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ould technically not otherwise be \"final\" under Rule 54(b) because another related claim (or \"issue\") is still pending in the larger action. See id. In Comstock v. Comstock, this Court dismissed attempted interlocutory appeals from an injunction order and domestic relations order on the grounds that these types of orders \"are not included on the list of immediately appealable interlocutory orders.\" 240 N.C. App. 304, 322, 771 S.E.2d 602, 615 (2015) (citing N.C.G.S. § 50–19.1). Based on this reasoning and interpretation of section 50-19.1, it appears this Court was guided by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97da4dc0-bdef-4623-984a-ca4e28bb445b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4281185-4281185","title":"CourtListener opinion 4281185","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA17-787","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: . In April, the parties entered into a Consent Order to Sell Former Marital Residence, in which they agreed the funds from the sale of the marital home would be held in the parties' attorneys' trust accounts until resolution of the pending cross-claims for equitable distribution. Plaintiff and defendant again reached an impasse at private mediation. On 31 May, the parties proceeded to a hearing before the Honorable Lisa V. L. Menefee, Chief Judge presiding in Forsyth County District Court on the pending cross-claims for child support and defendant's claim for post-separation support. Judge Menefee rendered an oral ruling for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4283326 Extracted reporter citation: 996 A.2d 696. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4283326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oceeding. 6 Specifically, the trial justice ordered the parties to divide equally the proceeds from the sale of the \"marital domicile\" on Hobson Avenue; the personal household property in that home; \"any and all retirement account(s)\"; the cost of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; the value of Kevin's life insurance policy, which listed Angela as the primary beneficiary; and any property in their safe-deposit box. The trial justice also adjudged that each party would be awarded all rights, title, and interest in their respective vehicles and any individually-held checking or savings accounts, and held each solely responsible for the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ecessary, the second part would be a divorce proceeding. 6 Specifically, the trial justice ordered the parties to divide equally the proceeds from the sale of the \"marital domicile\" on Hobson Avenue; the personal household property in that home; \"any and all retirement account(s)\"; the cost of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; the value of Kevin's life insurance policy, which listed Angela as the primary beneficiary; and any property in their safe-deposit box. The trial justice also adjudged that each party would be awarded all rights, title, and interest in their respective vehicles and any individually-held checkin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ncing evidence where \"[t]here were many documents introduced in evidence, such as tax returns, a mortgage application, and insurance - 13 - applications in which she listed herself as single[,]\" \"[the] defendant was not designated as a beneficiary on her pension or 401(k)[,]\" and \"their condominium was owned as tenants in common, not as tenants by the entirety, or even joint tenants[,]\" nor did the parties jointly hold bank accounts). In the past, we have said that similar \"declarations strongly weighed against any serious intent to be husband and wife.\" Smith, 966 A.2d at 115; see also Lovegrove v. McCutcheon,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ee11d01-14b3-4e2e-89bb-032752ff37a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4283326-4283326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4283326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"996 A.2d 696","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Moreover, in 2001, Kevin named her as the sole beneficiary and heir in his will and, in 2003, the sole beneficiary on his life insurance plan. However, Kevin's will did not name her as his wife. Kevin also designated Angela as the primary beneficiary of his 401(k) plan in December 2000 and again in February 2001, listing her as his \"fiancée\" each time. Angela explained that, from 1990 until 2013, with the exception of 2008 and 2009, Kevin helped her prepare and file her tax returns. She stated that she always filed her taxes as \"single\" or \"head of household,\" and that she and Kevin never filed joint tax returns"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4285541 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bowe & Perry. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as more fully set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] to be entered herein. The [QDRO] will deal with the benefits from the date of marriage to the date of divorce. All other benefits are awarded to [Craig]. [Emphasis added.] 2 The decree was originally signed on December 19, 1996. On December 30, the trial court granted Craig's agreed motion to correct the December 19 decree, which Craig incorrectly st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Air Force Reserve. During his reserve duty, Craig worked as a pilot for a commercial airline. In 1996, Craig filed for divorce. The trial court signed a final divorce decree on December 30, 1996,2 and as relevant to this appeal, addressed Craig's military-retirement benefits: [Craig] is awarded the following as [his] sole and separate property, and [Audrey] is divested of . . . .... . . . [a]ll right, title, and interest in and to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , title, and interest in and to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as more fully set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] to be entered herein. The [QDRO] will deal with the benefits from the date of marriage to the date of divorce. All other benefits are awarded to [Craig]. [Emphasis added.] 2 The decree was originally signed on December 19, 1996. On December 30, the trial court granted Craig's agreed motion to correct the December 19 decree, which Craig incorrec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1e39a7-1d75-47ca-bba8-99689475aa6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285541-4285541","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285541","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: - FROM THE 324TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 324-578647-15 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------- Appellant Audrey Diane Gourley appeals from the trial court's judgment declaring a 1998 divorce decree void and declaring the property division as stated in the prior 1996 divorce decree enforceable. Because we agree with the trial court that the 1998 divorce decree was void, we affirm the trial court's declaratory judgment. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. I. BACKGROUND A. THE 1996 DECREE On June 11, 1978, Audrey and Appellee Craig Neil Gourley were married. During the marriage, Craig serve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4285710 Extracted reporter citation: 864 N.W.2d 689. Docket: A-17-422. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285710 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: into a property settlement agreement. Pursuant to the property settlement agreement, Kelly will receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ill receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months, or until the remarriage of Kelly, the death of either party, or until further"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months, or until the remarriage of Kelly, the death of either party, or until further order of the court. The court approved the parties' property settlement agreement and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9157282c-2f7c-41c3-909c-f804dc70a8ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285710-4285710","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285710","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-17-422","extracted_reporter_citation":"864 N.W.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: operty settlement agreement. Pursuant to the property settlement agreement, Kelly will receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc53b119-0b8d-4480-aba8-65bc2f07e4b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4285754 Extracted case name: MORROW v. MORROW. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285754 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc53b119-0b8d-4480-aba8-65bc2f07e4b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc53b119-0b8d-4480-aba8-65bc2f07e4b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Husband's employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment to meet his needs. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(10"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc53b119-0b8d-4480-aba8-65bc2f07e4b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 319(B)(3). Additionally, Husband's employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bc53b119-0b8d-4480-aba8-65bc2f07e4b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4285754-4285754","title":"CourtListener opinion 4285754","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment to meet his needs. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(10"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4286025 Extracted reporter citation: 99 S.W.3d 150. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4286025 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ee Retirement System (FERS). In late 2008, the trial court rendered Thomas and Lisa divorced pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA provides in pertinent part as follows: \"FERS retirement— Community interest divided 50-50 with approved QDRO[.]\" The trial court later signed a Final Decree of Divorce, followed by a Nunc Pro Tunc Decree of Divorce, and finally a Revised Nunc Pro Tunc Decree of Divorce (Revised Decree) dated February 24, 2010. The Revised Decree expressly references the MSA and states \"A record of the parties['] agreement is evidenced by their Mediation Agreement, signed by a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Thomas Ritter Helm and Lisa Lorraine Hauser were married in 1986. In 1991, Thomas became employed in the federal civil service and continued in that position for the duration of the 04-17-00232-CV parties' marriage. During his employment, Thomas accrued retirement benefits in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). In late 2008, the trial court rendered Thomas and Lisa divorced pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA provides in pertinent part as follows: \"FERS retirement— Community interest divided 50-50 with approved QDRO[.]\" The trial court later signed a Final Decree of Divorce, followed b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): W-3. Fifty (50%) percent of the community property interest whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all pro-rata increases thereof, proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit- sharing plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan and thrift savings plan or other benefit existing by reason of [Thomas's] past and present employment as of December 29, 2008 as specifically set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered simultaneously herewith. 1 In 2010, Thomas retired from the civil service and applie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96fbfa8c-07d4-401c-b361-37601ae502da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286025-4286025","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"99 S.W.3d 150","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sharing plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan and thrift savings plan or other benefit existing by reason of [Thomas's] past and present employment as of December 29, 2008 as specifically set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered simultaneously herewith. 1 In 2010, Thomas retired from the civil service and applied to receive FERS benefits. Between 2011 and 2017, Thomas received $241,985.63 in FERS benefits. Although she applied to the office managing FERS benefits to receive her share of the benefits directly, Lisa never received any benefits. On October 1, 2015, Lis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdf62aa3-c568-4761-92c3-fc9818f7e3ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District","extracted_reporter_citation":"29 F. App'x 907","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4286372 Extracted reporter citation: 29 F. App'x 907. Docket: 15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4286372 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdf62aa3-c568-4761-92c3-fc9818f7e3ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District","extracted_reporter_citation":"29 F. App'x 907","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdf62aa3-c568-4761-92c3-fc9818f7e3ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District","extracted_reporter_citation":"29 F. App'x 907","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: discretion for abuse thereof. Id; In re Ben Franklin Hotel Assoc., 186 F.3d 301, 304 (3d Cir. 1999). Ms. Beeghley's arguments on appeal are difficult to discern. She primarily contends that the Delaware Family Court's November 7, 1995 order constitutes a QDRO, and that the Beeghleys' bankruptcy petition filed thereafter could not affect that order. 5 She also argues that the bankruptcy petition could not affect her interest in the retirement assets, which arose from the November 7, 1995 order. These arguments are not properly before us because they were not raised in Bankruptcy Court and/or in the District"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cdf62aa3-c568-4761-92c3-fc9818f7e3ff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4286372-4286372","title":"CourtListener opinion 4286372","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District","extracted_reporter_citation":"29 F. App'x 907","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the delay based on accounting issues that it concluded would be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve at this late date. The Bankruptcy Court stated, and the record reflects, that the Family Court's November 7, 1995 order provided for the division of a retirement plan that had previously been terminated and where the assets had already been distributed. We find no error in the Bankruptcy Court's finding of prejudice. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.3 3 Ms. Beeghley's motion to dismiss the Beeghleys' brief is denied. Her motions to supplement and/or expand the record (as supplemented a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2febbc0c-37cc-4c95-b502-96520af1b644","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825","title":"CourtListener opinion 4287825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-326 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 N.E.2d 1232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4287825 Extracted reporter citation: 869 N.E.2d 1232. Docket: 18A-DR-326 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4287825 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2febbc0c-37cc-4c95-b502-96520af1b644","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825","title":"CourtListener opinion 4287825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-326 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 N.E.2d 1232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2febbc0c-37cc-4c95-b502-96520af1b644","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4287825-4287825","title":"CourtListener opinion 4287825","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-326 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 N.E.2d 1232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ies are going to keep all property present in their possession. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-326 | June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 14 real estate is going to be the property of the husband. The husband is going to transfer, I think, by way of QDRO or transference $30,000 from an IRA into my client's name. Ah, he's going to give her $5,000 cash—and when is that payable— when can you get that? [Husband's counsel]: He had asked for six (6) months. [Wife's counsel]: Okay. Six (6) months. Okay. Ah, the parties are going to be responsible for the debt in their individual name. I don't believe there'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4290437 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dalton. Extracted reporter citation: 412 S.W.2d 29. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4290437 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s in arrears on his support obligations and held him in contempt. The court issued a wage-withholding order requiring Bart's employer to withhold some of his earnings to satisfy his monthly child-support and support-alimony obligations. It later entered a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (commonly called a \"QDRO\") making up for some of Bart's arrearages by assigning Carol an additional interest in Bart's retirement accounts. Bart and Carol's divorce was made final in 2011. Consistent with the earlier summary judgment, the Texas court's final divorce decree incorporated the Oklahoma order approving the parties' agreement. Neither Bart"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: approved in the Oklahoma order, and later issued various post-divorce orders to enforce the former husband's obligations. The former husband argues that the court cannot enforce his spousal-support obligation by wage withholding or by an assignment of his retirement benefits to his former wife. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. We agree with the former husband on both points. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment that the wage-withholding order and the order assigning retirement benefits to enforce unpaid spousal support are void. I. Background For 150 years, the State of Texas rejec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ty rights to a spouse [or] former spouse\" and \"is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). But ERISA's prohibition against assignments does not apply to a \"qualified domestic relations order\"; instead, ERISA requires pension plans to \"provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.\" Id. § 1056(d)(3)(A) (emphasis 15 added).17 A pension plan that receives a valid QDRO must pay the plan benefits to the spouse or former spouse designated as an alternate payee. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(H)(ii), (J), (K)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e7d9817-22ab-4bfd-bf3d-a3d9ab33e8d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290437-4290437","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290437","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"412 S.W.2d 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: t to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).\" Neither Carol nor the trial court identified any Texas law authorizing the order. Carol argues, however, that what Texas law does or does not authorize is immaterial because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (of which section 1056(d)(3) is a part) \"supersede[s] any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). We agree 14 that ERISA preempts any Texas law relating to employee benefit plans, but here, there is no Texas law that ERISA would preempt. ERISA was enacted \"to protect . . . th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4290438 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 641 S.W.2d 210. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4290438 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e order or agreement in Texas could never do so by income withholding or contempt because such orders or agreements are simply not entered with another state's law in mind. II. Retirement Benefits The Court holds that the trial court erred in entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) assigning Carol additional interests in Bart's retirement accounts to satisfy his alimony arrearages. Because Carol has never argued that any portion of Bart's support obligation qualifies as spousal maintenance under chapter 8, I agree with the Court that it is enforceable in Texas only as a contract and that Texas law does not authorize satisfa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: g full faith and credit to an Oklahoma order approving a spousal maintenance agreement between Bart and Carol Dalton. After Bart fell behind on his maintenance payments, Carol sought to enforce the order by income withholding and by an assignment of Bart's retirement benefits. The Court holds that Carol is entitled to neither of these enforcement mechanisms. While I agree with that result under the circumstances of this case, I write separately to clarify my views on a spouse's ability to enforce spousal maintenance obligations to the extent they qualify as such under chapter 8 of the Family Code. I. Income Withholding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ation of retirement benefits and preempts state law to the contrary. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1), 1144(a). However, QDROs are exempt from this prohibition. See id. § 1056(d); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997) (noting that QDROs \"are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision and ERISA's general pre-emption clause\" (citations omitted)). ERISA defines a QDRO as \"a domestic relations order\" that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable 4 with respect to a participant und"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14657c93-6141-4a80-9c61-80c4db18d8f5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4290438-4290438","title":"CourtListener opinion 4290438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"641 S.W.2d 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tate law to the contrary. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1), 1144(a). However, QDROs are exempt from this prohibition. See id. § 1056(d); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997) (noting that QDROs \"are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision and ERISA's general pre-emption clause\" (citations omitted)). ERISA defines a QDRO as \"a domestic relations order\" that \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable 4 with respect to a participant under a plan,\" and that meets various other t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4291602 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIE ANN ANKENBAUER AND MARTYN DAVID ANKENBAUER Upon the Petition of JULIE ANN. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 17-1227. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4291602 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 6 (Iowa 1995) (\"It should not invalidate a property division if a disproportionate expectation regarding social security benefits is acknowledged in the court's assessment of the equities.\"). We therefore modify the decree and remand with directions that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be entered directing IPERS to pay a percentage of Martyn's benefits to Julie consistent with Iowa Code section 97B.39. See Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2007). The percentage shall be calculated by a formula using the number of years of marriage in which pension benefits accumulated as the numerator and the total number of years p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y years and both were retired at the time of the dissolution. During the marriage, Julie worked for the federal government. She was employed in the postal department and the Corp of Engineers. Julie retired in December 2010. In 2015, Julie cashed out her retirement account, a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which at that time totaled $76,192.18. From that total, $15,238.44 was withheld for federal tax, and Julie received a lump sum of $60,953.74. Julie used $43,813 to pay off the mortgage on the couple's home purchased in 1984,1 $4275 to pay 2015 taxes on the property, and $4774 to pay a joint credit card debt. The parties pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n dissolution cases, just as any other property.\" (Citations omitted.)); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(i) (stating vested and unvested pensions are circumstances to be considered in equitably dividing property). There are two accepted methods of dividing pension benefits: the present-value method and the percentage method. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 255; 24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation §§ 585–86, at 747–50 (1998). Additionally, there are two main types of pension plans: defined-benefit plans and defined-contribution plans. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 254. .... IPERS is, of cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"068d30be-5b96-4527-8217-097ceceea9ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4291602-4291602","title":"CourtListener opinion 4291602","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1227","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 95) (\"It should not invalidate a property division if a disproportionate expectation regarding social security benefits is acknowledged in the court's assessment of the equities.\"). We therefore modify the decree and remand with directions that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be entered directing IPERS to pay a percentage of Martyn's benefits to Julie consistent with Iowa Code section 97B.39. See Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2007). The percentage shall be calculated by a formula using the number of years of marriage in which pension benefits accumulated as the numerator and the total number of years p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdd72c9d-8368-4b01-ad95-90af879f139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044","title":"CourtListener opinion 4292044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"9 N.E.3d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4292044 Extracted reporter citation: 9 N.E.3d 1016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4292044 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdd72c9d-8368-4b01-ad95-90af879f139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044","title":"CourtListener opinion 4292044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"9 N.E.3d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdd72c9d-8368-4b01-ad95-90af879f139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044","title":"CourtListener opinion 4292044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"9 N.E.3d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: leas Court issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement benefits to the parties. Specifically, Bosse, as the trial court's expert, was ordered by the magistrate to prepare four Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\") in order to equitably divide David's retirement benefits from Delphi Corporation. Pursuant to the magistrate's order, in June of 2009, Bosse presented the parties with four QDROs. {¶ 4} In February 2010, Hamlin, through counsel, sent Bosse a letter informing him that certain necessary language was missing from the QDROs and that the amount of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdd72c9d-8368-4b01-ad95-90af879f139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044","title":"CourtListener opinion 4292044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"9 N.E.3d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d establishes that Hamlin and her ex-husband, David, obtained a divorce on August 2, 1990, in Darke County Common Pleas Court Case No. 88-DIV-50267. Pursuant to one of the orders issued by the trial court, Hamlin was to receive one-half of her ex-husband's retirement benefits administered by the General Motors Corporation. In May of 2003, David retired from Delphi Corporation, a subsidiary of General Motors. {¶ 3} Thereafter, on October 30, 2008, a magistrate from the Darke County Common Pleas Court issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fdd72c9d-8368-4b01-ad95-90af879f139d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4292044-4292044","title":"CourtListener opinion 4292044","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"9 N.E.3d 1016","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement benefits to the parties. Specifically, Bosse, as the trial court's expert, was ordered by the magistrate to prepare four Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDRO\") in order to equitably divide David's retirement benefits from Delphi Corporation. Pursuant to the magistrate's order, in June of 2009, Bosse presented the parties with four QDROs. {¶ 4} In February 2010, Hamlin, through counsel, sent Bosse a letter informing him that certain necessary language was missing from the QDROs and that the amount of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43c2f577-af54-442c-b1eb-cdcd6498f70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4293146 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43c2f577-af54-442c-b1eb-cdcd6498f70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43c2f577-af54-442c-b1eb-cdcd6498f70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: luding the cases. The third one arose from Respondent's failure to pay $2,500 to his client after the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board instructed him to do so. Finally, the fourth complaint was filed after Respondent took approximately a decade to have three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared. He represented a client in a domestic matter that was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the family court in 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43c2f577-af54-442c-b1eb-cdcd6498f70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare the QDROs, which were submitted to the retirement plans in 2009 and 2010. Law Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), Rule 1.5 (lawy"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43c2f577-af54-442c-b1eb-cdcd6498f70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293146-4293146","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293146","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cases. The third one arose from Respondent's failure to pay $2,500 to his client after the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board instructed him to do so. Finally, the fourth complaint was filed after Respondent took approximately a decade to have three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared. He represented a client in a domestic matter that was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the family court in 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e344e53-1d65-48ae-aea7-32b5f99886f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1817 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 A.2d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4293283 Extracted reporter citation: 629 A.2d 1014. Docket: 1817 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293283 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e344e53-1d65-48ae-aea7-32b5f99886f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1817 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 A.2d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e344e53-1d65-48ae-aea7-32b5f99886f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1817 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 A.2d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y 8, 2016. Between July 14, 2016 and November 30, 2016, Husband filed eight petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement, all of which were denied by the trial court. On December 14, 2016, the parties came to an agreement and executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order addressing Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension payout. However, beginning on January 4, 2017 through November 14, 2017, Husband filed another six petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial court denied each petition. On November 27, 2017, Husband filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e344e53-1d65-48ae-aea7-32b5f99886f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1817 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 A.2d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: history of this case as follows: Husband and [Lysbeth W. Clark (Wife)] signed a post- nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. As stated in paragraph twelve (12) of the Agreement, Wife is entitled to a percentage of Husband's Philadelphia Electric Company pension when Husband begins drawing on it. Paragraph 12 also contains a formula to determine Wife's monthly portion of Husband's pension payout. In 1995, Husband retired and Wife began receiving her portion of Husband's pension payment directly from Husband. The amount of this payment was $532.30 per month. Husband began withholding monthly payments to Wife i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e344e53-1d65-48ae-aea7-32b5f99886f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293283-4293283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1817 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 A.2d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Between July 14, 2016 and November 30, 2016, Husband filed eight petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement, all of which were denied by the trial court. On December 14, 2016, the parties came to an agreement and executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order addressing Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension payout. However, beginning on January 4, 2017 through November 14, 2017, Husband filed another six petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial court denied each petition. On November 27, 2017, Husband filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b48a63d-a49a-4fb8-b947-26a56fa9ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 A.2d 419","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4293872 Extracted reporter citation: 568 A.2d 419. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293872 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b48a63d-a49a-4fb8-b947-26a56fa9ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 A.2d 419","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b48a63d-a49a-4fb8-b947-26a56fa9ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 A.2d 419","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that precluded employment and shortened his life expectancy. His inability to work increased his need for his full pension income. Because husband's pension is tied to his life, husband's health issues meant wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b48a63d-a49a-4fb8-b947-26a56fa9ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 A.2d 419","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r the divorce order has become absolute. We hold the court does have jurisdiction, and accordingly we reverse and remand. ¶ 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that precluded employment and shortened his life expectancy. His inab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b48a63d-a49a-4fb8-b947-26a56fa9ee0b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4293872-4293872","title":"CourtListener opinion 4293872","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"568 A.2d 419","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: roperty-division order based on the agreement of the parties after the divorce order has become absolute. We hold the court does have jurisdiction, and accordingly we reverse and remand. ¶ 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that preclude"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4294014 Extracted reporter citation: 562 A.2d 912. Docket: 3888 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294014 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ement and determining the amount of arrears to be $142,938.58. Trial Court Order, filed 9/26/16. The trial court indicated: [Husband] may purge himself of this contempt by cooperating within thirty (30) days in the preparation and signing of an approved Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) regarding his [] pension authorizing payment to [Wife] in an amount equal to 75 percent of the monthly pension benefit. ____________________________________________ 1 The trial court found that Husband's \"pension went into pay status in 2002, while his social security went into pay status in 2012.\" Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, filed 1/2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ered into a stipulated settlement agreement as it pertained to the economic claims. Relevantly, the parties' settlement agreement provided that: \"When [Husband] begins to collect social security, 20% of that will go to [Wife]. When he begins to collect his pension, ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S37034-18 25% of that will go to [Wife].\" Parties' Stipulated Settlement Agreement, filed 8/20/92, at 1-2. Subsequently, on November 9, 2015, Wife filed her first petition for contempt indicating that, by letter dated August 18, 2014, she received notice"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: determining the amount of arrears to be $142,938.58. Trial Court Order, filed 9/26/16. The trial court indicated: [Husband] may purge himself of this contempt by cooperating within thirty (30) days in the preparation and signing of an approved Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) regarding his [] pension authorizing payment to [Wife] in an amount equal to 75 percent of the monthly pension benefit. ____________________________________________ 1 The trial court found that Husband's \"pension went into pay status in 2002, while his social security went into pay status in 2012.\" Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, filed 1/2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cf0da-dbcb-4742-ab22-b4cb4834e990","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294014-4294014","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3888 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"562 A.2d 912","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: abel Manzo (\"Wife\"). After a careful review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Husband and Wife were married on January 10, 1971, and on October 24, 1990, Wife filed a complaint in divorce in which she sought alimony and equitable distribution of the parties' marital estate. The trial court entered a divorce decree on August 20, 1992, and the parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement as it pertained to the economic claims. Relevantly, the parties' settlement agreement provided that: \"When [Husband] begins to collect social security, 20% of that will go to [Wife]. When he begins"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f14bf0-92c2-4a00-8987-109576918ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"787 A.2d 46","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4294342 Extracted case name: KATIE N. CONROY v. AMMAR A. IDLIBI. Extracted reporter citation: 787 A.2d 46. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294342 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f14bf0-92c2-4a00-8987-109576918ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"787 A.2d 46","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f14bf0-92c2-4a00-8987-109576918ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"787 A.2d 46","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f [General Statutes §] 46b-86 (b) are incorporated by reference into these orders.'' With respect to property distributions, the court issued the following orders: ‘‘[The] defendant shall immediately transfer by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) one half . . . of his RBC Wealth Management retirement account . . . that accrued from the date of the marriage to the date of this decision plus gains and losses incurred from the date of the decision until the date of distribution. [The] defendant may choose a qualified professional to assist in the preparation of such an order. He shall be solely respon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f14bf0-92c2-4a00-8987-109576918ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294342-4294342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"787 A.2d 46","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by reference into these orders.'' With respect to property distributions, the court issued the following orders: ‘‘[The] defendant shall immediately transfer by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) one half . . . of his RBC Wealth Management retirement account . . . that accrued from the date of the marriage to the date of this decision plus gains and losses incurred from the date of the decision until the date of distribution. [The] defendant may choose a qualified professional to assist in the preparation of such an order. He shall be solely responsible for any and all costs of preparation or imple- mentation."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4294809 Extracted case name: KRENZEN v. KATZ. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294809 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Lori Krenzen (\"Wife\") appeals the family court's post-decree qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and the denial of her request for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the QDRO and remand the issue of attorney fees for the family court to consider the parties' financial resources. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz (\"Husband\") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz (\"Husband\") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marriage in September 2012, and the parties were divorced in November 2013. As relevant here, the decree provided that \"Father's Marker Advisors 401k shall be divided so that all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50.\" (Emphasis added.) ¶3 Later, Husband proposed a QDRO assigning Wife 50 percent of the funds contributed in the Marker Advisors 401(k) (the \"401(k)\") through September 2012. Wife objected and argued she was entitled to 50 percent of the 401"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Lori Krenzen (\"Wife\") appeals the family court's post-decree qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and the denial of her request for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the QDRO and remand the issue of attorney fees for the family court to consider the parties' financial resources. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz (\"Husband\") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3fb45719-fd52-4007-a029-139fbd531084","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4294809-4294809","title":"CourtListener opinion 4294809","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 980)). ¶6 The family court determined that the language of the decree is ambiguous. Whether or not we agree with that determination, we agree with the ultimate outcome. Specifically, the parties' \"marriage\" ended in November 2013. See A.R.S. § 25-325(A). The community property aspect of the marriage \"is deemed to have terminated upon the service of a petition 1 Although the family court did not specifically \"deny\" the fee requests, his failure to rule implies they were denied. See Pearson v. Pearson, 190 Ariz. 231, 237 (App. 1997). 3 KRENZEN v. KATZ Decision of the Court that results in a decree of dissolution.\" Bobrow v."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9166533c-24fd-4e1c-a2b0-826108f4a415","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4295195 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4295195 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9166533c-24fd-4e1c-a2b0-826108f4a415","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9166533c-24fd-4e1c-a2b0-826108f4a415","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: \" Id. The court then concluded that a latent ambiguity exists when \"a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations.\" Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified \"as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respecti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9166533c-24fd-4e1c-a2b0-826108f4a415","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: es of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations.\" Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified \"as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respective duties.\" Id. at 1123. Finally, in Hayes, this Court held that the contractual lang"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9166533c-24fd-4e1c-a2b0-826108f4a415","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295195-4295195","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court then concluded that a latent ambiguity exists when \"a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations.\" Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified \"as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respecti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4295289 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BENJAMIN WILLIAM INGERSOLL AND JENNIFER LIZABETH INGERSOLL Upon the Petition of. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-1974. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4295289 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: following the separation from Jennifer, taking out a loan for solar panels in an amount greater than the increase in value attributable the asset. 11 awarded fifty percent of the marital interest in Ben's accounts to Jennifer. The court properly ordered a QDRO be prepared to limit any distribution to accumulations and earnings accrued during the marriage. The court found Jennifer's retirement accounts to be \"nominal\" and determined she would retain sole ownership of those funds. Given Jennifer's financial circumstances, the minimal nature of her accounts, and the use of the assets, we do not find the determi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ated child support using some overtime hours in Ben's income and adopting Jennifer's suggested imputed income, requiring Ben to pay $325 per month in child support. The court divided the marital assets and debts, including equity in the family home, Ben's retirement accounts, and medical debts. The court also awarded Jennifer a portion of her requested attorney fees. 4 Ben appeals the district court ruling of joint physical care and seeks physical care of A.M.I. Ben appeals the child-support calculation, distribution of assets, and awarding of attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolution of marriage ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: home-improvement projects during the marriage, which would have increased the equity. We find the evidence supports the court's increase in equity of the house during the marriage, and that the court's determination is equitable. 2. Retirement benefits Pension and retirement benefits are marital property and thus subject to equitable division between the parties to a dissolution proceeding. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993). There are two accepted methods of dividing retirement benefits: the present-value method and the percentage method. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9cc7226-0b89-4edb-b175-a884f70ccb31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4295289-4295289","title":"CourtListener opinion 4295289","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1974","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): efits accrued at maturity.\" Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 255. Both Ben and Jennifer had retirement accounts during their marriage. Jennifer cashed out her accounts of approximately $2700 to pay toward her legal bills. Ben had approximately $20,000 in his IRA and 401K account at the time of the hearing from contributions both before and during the marriage. The court 2 We note Ben decreased the home's equity following the separation from Jennifer, taking out a loan for solar panels in an amount greater than the increase in value attributable the asset. 11 awarded fifty percent of the marital interest in Ben's accoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3643724-d325-4af3-bf6f-d476aec31e84","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4297254","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for August 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4297254 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Moore. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: for August 5. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4297254 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3643724-d325-4af3-bf6f-d476aec31e84","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4297254","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for August 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3643724-d325-4af3-bf6f-d476aec31e84","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4297254-4297254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4297254","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for August 5","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ad failed to pay Maria $58,511.89 in military retirement pay to which she was entitled. The trial court awarded Maria a judgment for that amount and further awarded her attorney a judgment for $11,698.00 in attorney's fees. Finally, the order incorporated a domestic relations order with regard to Juan's military retirement pay. Maria's attorney signed and filed an attorney's certificate of respondent's last known mailing address on the same day the order was signed, listing a street address in Killeen, Texas, for Juan and an address for the Law Office of Manuel V. Rodriguez. On September 14, 2017, Juan filed his notice of restric"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a93a7572-8959-492e-921f-52c556568669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735","title":"CourtListener opinion 4298735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"435 S.W.3d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4298735 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ford. Extracted reporter citation: 435 S.W.3d 347. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4298735 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a93a7572-8959-492e-921f-52c556568669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735","title":"CourtListener opinion 4298735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"435 S.W.3d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a93a7572-8959-492e-921f-52c556568669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735","title":"CourtListener opinion 4298735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"435 S.W.3d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt of $150,000 from his ExxonMobil Savings Plan. During the hearing, Embesi testified that she understood the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and that it was a fair and equitable division of the parties' marital estate. The trial court entered a QDRO that was approved by the parties and which awarded Embesi $150,000 from Hall's ExxonMobil Savings Plan. In March 2014, Embesi filed another petition for post-divorce division of property, claiming that she was entitled to a division of Hall's ExxonMobil Pension Plan. Hall answered Embesi's petition and argued that the division of the marital estate h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a93a7572-8959-492e-921f-52c556568669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735","title":"CourtListener opinion 4298735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"435 S.W.3d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rding to Hall, Embesi knew that he had a savings plan and a pension plan, and the parties had agreed that his payment of $186,000 to Embesi would settle any 3 disputes regarding both plans. Hall testified that Embesi had agreed to have her portion of the retirement benefits paid out in cash from the savings plan, instead of having to wait to receive money from the pension plan. Hall further testified that from 2008 to 2010, he paid Embesi $4000 per month. Hall explained that he had agreed to the bill of review to allow the court to award Embesi more money even though the dispute concerning his retirement arose after any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a93a7572-8959-492e-921f-52c556568669","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4298735-4298735","title":"CourtListener opinion 4298735","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"435 S.W.3d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: that was approved by the parties and which awarded Embesi $150,000 from Hall's ExxonMobil Savings Plan. In March 2014, Embesi filed another petition for post-divorce division of property, claiming that she was entitled to a division of Hall's ExxonMobil Pension Plan. Hall answered Embesi's petition and argued that the division of the marital estate had been litigated, settled, and confirmed, and that Embesi was not entitled to any further relief. In May 2015, Hall filed a traditional motion for summary 2 judgment, arguing that Embesi's post-divorce attempt to divide retirement funds was barred by res judica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4300442 Extracted reporter citation: 557 A.2d 23. Docket: 1787 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4300442 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the pension. The trial court entered a final divorce decree on December 19, 2012. The decree incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement, including their agreement to divide equally the monthly payment benefits issued from Husband's pension. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was subsequently prepared and executed by Wife, as an alternate payee, on October 29, 2013 and by Husband, as a participant, on November 20, 2013.1 With the preparation of the QDRO, the parties learned that they each would receive a monthly payment of $480.52 from Husband's pension. See QDRO, 12/3/13, at 2. On November 14, 2013, Wife filed a pet"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ontroversy. Among these are the keeping of the defeated party away from court by false promise of ____________________________________________ 4 As additional support for her claims, Wife alleges that Husband removed funds from insurance policies and 401(k) retirement plans. These actions, however, are wholly unrelated to the relief ordered by the trial court and, therefore, would not support affirmance even if the claims proved meritorious. Hence, we shall not consider them further. -6- J-A02026-18 compromise, or fraudulently keeping him in ignorance of the action. Another instance is where an attorney without authorit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 76 and separated on June 20, 2009. Husband filed a divorce complaint on November 5, 2009. Thereafter, in August 2012, the parties appeared before a hearing master to divide their marital assets, including funds held in Husband's Kmart Corporation Employee Pension Plan (pension). At the hearing, the parties agreed to equally divide the monthly payment benefit issued from Husband's pension and further agreed to incorporate this \"equal division\" term into their marital settlement agreement. The record of the hearing contains no discussion of, or agreement to, a specific monetary sum that Husband or Wife expected t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49833712-5245-4c24-ae8b-6cea12cc734b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4300442-4300442","title":"CourtListener opinion 4300442","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1787 WDA 2016","extracted_reporter_citation":"557 A.2d 23","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): f the controversy. Among these are the keeping of the defeated party away from court by false promise of ____________________________________________ 4 As additional support for her claims, Wife alleges that Husband removed funds from insurance policies and 401(k) retirement plans. These actions, however, are wholly unrelated to the relief ordered by the trial court and, therefore, would not support affirmance even if the claims proved meritorious. Hence, we shall not consider them further. -6- J-A02026-18 compromise, or fraudulently keeping him in ignorance of the action. Another instance is where an attorney"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f853e8-eae7-4345-a7ec-202ece159aea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1139 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"163 A.3d 399","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4301612 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Whitley. Extracted reporter citation: 163 A.3d 399. Docket: 1139 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301612 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f853e8-eae7-4345-a7ec-202ece159aea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1139 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"163 A.3d 399","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f853e8-eae7-4345-a7ec-202ece159aea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1139 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"163 A.3d 399","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s $474,422.57. 1 See N.T., 9/15/16, Exhibit XW-3. The parties stipulated that [Wife] received this amount from the parties' joint TD stock account. At the time of the hearing on September 15, 2016, the -2- J-A14014-18 parties had yet to finalize a QDRO with respect to [Husband's] TIAA-CREF account. It is anticipated that one- half of this account will be approximately $35,000 to $37,000. (N.T., 9/15/16, pp. 38, 81). We issued an Order dated September 16, 2016,[1] that directed [Husband] to pay to [Wife] cash in the amount of $62,000 within 30 days of the date of the Order. That would leave a balan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8f853e8-eae7-4345-a7ec-202ece159aea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301612-4301612","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301612","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1139 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"163 A.3d 399","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: STORY The parties were formally married. They have two (2) minor children. The parties were divorced pursuant to a Divorce Decree dated January 11, 2016. The Divorce Decree incorporated a settlement agreement (\"PSA\") that was placed on the record before Equitable Distribution Master Bruce Goldenberg on December 17, 2015. Pursuant to the PSA, [Husband] agreed to transfer assets ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A14014-18 totaling $575,000 to [Wife]. The $575,000 was to be distributed to [Wife] as follows: (1) $50,000 in accounts or assets that [Wife] had received"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4301716 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301716 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43215 [Cite as Keller v. Keller, 2018-Ohio-3141.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant/Wife appeals the December 27, 2017 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and the January 22, 2018 QDRO's for the IBM and Nationwide Pension Plans. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall divide equally all retirement/employment benefits, as described below, whether referred to as an IRA, 401(k) Pension, Retirement Plans, Profit Sharing or otherwise, and whether qualified or not qualified, including but not limited to all benefits through Nationwide and prior employer IBM. The part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: [Cite as Keller v. Keller, 2018-Ohio-3141.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant/Wife appeals the December 27, 2017 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and the January 22, 2018 QDRO's for the IBM and Nationwide Pension Plans. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a7797963-1fc4-4531-8e05-36779cd7cc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301716-4301716","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): greed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall divide equally all retirement/employment benefits, as described below, whether referred to as an IRA, 401(k) Pension, Retirement Plans, Profit Sharing or otherwise, and whether qualified or not qualified, including but not limited to all benefits through Nationwide and prior employer IBM. The parties shall retain QDRO Consultants Company or another proper expert to prepare any necessary QDRO(s) * * * The Retirement Plan documents will control the divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4301899 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301899 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be reduced from Husband's NY Life whole life policy [Appellant] is receiving. [Appellant] shall also receive 50% of the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension he is receiving from the Port Authority. [Appellant's] counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband shall receive the following marital property: The Marital share of 3824 Mountain Road $55,000.00 The Marital share of 2893 Overhill Street $23,000.00 The PNC Money Market account ...2308 $1,000.33 The PNC Checking Account ...4171 $2,821.22 The NY Life IRA $29,591.24 The Riding Mower $500.00 - 11 - J-A13012-18 The 1995 GMC Silvera"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: orn of the marriage although each party has adult children from a prior marriage. At the time of trial, Husband was 81 years of age. Husband is retired from his employment from the Port Authority of Allegheny County. He is also receiving Social Security Retirement benefits as well as rental income from rental property he owns. Husband's 2014 federal income tax return indicated his gross income (which included his retirement, rental and Social Security income) was $45,234. Husband's net monthly income was determined to be $3,388 at the time of the support hearing. At the time of trial, [Appellant] was 78 years of age."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: was determined to be $3,388 at the time of the support hearing. At the time of trial, [Appellant] was 78 years of age. [Appellant's] source of income is her income from Social Security as well as her rental income from the rental property she owns. Her pension from AT&T was cashed in sometime after her retirement in 1997. At the time of the support hearing, [Appellant's] net monthly income was determined to be $1,020. Husband is paying $1,106.81 to [Appellant] as alimony pendente lite, plus $100 toward the arrears. ... In 2012, Husband was diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm of the spinal cord (a cancero"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c573476b-dcd7-4ef2-be10-f5237dfb7bad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4301899-4301899","title":"CourtListener opinion 4301899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: from Husband's NY Life whole life policy [Appellant] is receiving. [Appellant] shall also receive 50% of the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension he is receiving from the Port Authority. [Appellant's] counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband shall receive the following marital property: The Marital share of 3824 Mountain Road $55,000.00 The Marital share of 2893 Overhill Street $23,000.00 The PNC Money Market account ...2308 $1,000.33 The PNC Checking Account ...4171 $2,821.22 The NY Life IRA $29,591.24 The Riding Mower $500.00 - 11 - J-A13012-18 The 1995 GMC Silvera"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4302778 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 62 N.E.3d 1212. Docket: 30A01-1712-DR-2768 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4302778 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to the trial court. However, during the evidentiary hearing, Husband specifically argued that the trial court should apply a coverture formula and argued that the trial court could not order the payments through a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") because the parties were not married for ten years during his military service. Husband testified that they were married for eight years during his twenty-one years of military service, and his Petitioner's Exhibit 2 requested Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A01-1712-DR-2768 | August 10, 2018 Page 9 of 24 a coverture factor of 49"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ired before or during the marriage, is generally included in the marital estate for property division. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). This Court has explained, The \"coverture fraction\" formula is one method a trial court may use to distribute pension or retirement plan benefits to the earning and non-earning spouses. Under this methodology, the value of the retirement plan is multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the period of time during which the marriage existed (while pension rights were accruing) and the denominator is the total period of time during which pension rights accrued. In re Marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rial court committed reversible error by deviating from the presumption of an equal division of marital property without explaining the deviation; II. whether the trial court erred by ordering that Wife receive sixty percent of Husband's gross military pension; III. whether the trial court erred when it ordered Husband to pay for Wife's vehicle in the future to transport their son; IV. whether the trial court erred when it valued Husband's Eli Lilly pension; and V. whether the trial court erred when it ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative maintenance to Wife. Facts [3] The parties had a child, C.M.,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f056f29-9f7d-440b-8587-e5dff2dab00c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302778-4302778","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302778","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30A01-1712-DR-2768 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"62 N.E.3d 1212","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hed agreements on most issues regarding the children, leaving mainly issues regarding division of the marital estate and maintenance. Husband proposed that he \"take on all liabilities associated with the marital estate.\" Tr. Vol. II p. 33. Husband has a 401K through his employment with Eli Lilly, a pension with Eli Lilly, and a military pension. Wife requested caretaker maintenance to care for D.M. and rehabilitative 1 Husband asserts that he has lost his job since the trial court's order. However, we cannot consider evidence not in the record. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A01-1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77a6ac06-0b9f-4453-a109-f20879b5b0b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302933","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-17-1157 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"999 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4302933 Extracted reporter citation: 999 N.E.2d 214. Docket: L-17-1157 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4302933 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77a6ac06-0b9f-4453-a109-f20879b5b0b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302933","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-17-1157 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"999 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77a6ac06-0b9f-4453-a109-f20879b5b0b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302933","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-17-1157 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"999 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t-matter jurisdiction. Nancy countered that her interest arose from the divorce decree and characterized herself as a transferee of Mollie K—not a member. She argued that the domestic relations court reserved continuing jurisdiction only as to the parties' qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). {¶ 15} Randolph and Max Auto also moved to strike Nancy's jury demand as untimely under Civ.R. 38(B). Nancy urged that even if her jury demand was untimely— which she denied—the trial court had discretion under Civ.R. 39(B) to permit a trial by jury. {¶ 16} The trial court denied Randolph and Max Auto's motion to dismiss. It agreed with N"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77a6ac06-0b9f-4453-a109-f20879b5b0b3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4302933-4302933","title":"CourtListener opinion 4302933","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-17-1157 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"999 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urisdiction. Nancy countered that her interest arose from the divorce decree and characterized herself as a transferee of Mollie K—not a member. She argued that the domestic relations court reserved continuing jurisdiction only as to the parties' qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). {¶ 15} Randolph and Max Auto also moved to strike Nancy's jury demand as untimely under Civ.R. 38(B). Nancy urged that even if her jury demand was untimely— which she denied—the trial court had discretion under Civ.R. 39(B) to permit a trial by jury. {¶ 16} The trial court denied Randolph and Max Auto's motion to dismiss. It agreed with N"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4304042 Extracted reporter citation: 417 P.3d 78. Docket: 20170472. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4304042 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Kiley petitioned for bankruptcy. About a month after that, the district court entered a supplemental decree reifying the settlement the parties had placed on the record. A couple months later, the district court entered the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)—the document that would permit Kiley to access Marrott's retirement funds. ¶ 5 Kiley did not list the retirement plan proceeds on her initial bankruptcy disclosures. At a meeting with her creditors—a meeting that took place before the district court entered the order memorializing the stipulated property division—Kiley disclosed her interest in the retire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng to Kiley, read the stipulation into the record before the domestic relations commissioner. As part of that stipulation, and to satisfy the judgment for unpaid child support and alimony, Kiley received \"all of the value in any and all of her former spouse's retirement accounts . . . .\" ¶ 4 The day after mediation, Kiley petitioned for bankruptcy. About a month after that, the district court entered a supplemental decree reifying the settlement the parties had placed on the record. A couple months later, the district court entered the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)—the document that would permit Kiley to access Marrot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ____ 3 That the question arises in the context of funds in a retirement account further complicates the question and informs our decision to decline to answer the first certified question. The parties agree that the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) may have some impact on the disposition of the funds. The bankruptcy court appears to have carefully drafted the question to leave the ERISA issues out of our court. Nevertheless, both parties analyze the question with reference to ERISA. For example, Kiley argues that (continued . . .) 5 In re KILEY Opinion of the Court ¶ 15 The second certified que"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af6f0310-f299-4f6f-95d8-8432e5cf2530","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304042-4304042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304042","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170472","extracted_reporter_citation":"417 P.3d 78","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): (1)(b), any money or other assets held for or payable to the individual as a participant or beneficiary from or an interest of the individual as a participant or beneficiary in a retirement plan or arrangement that is described in Section 401(a), 401(h), 401(k), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 409, 414(d), 414(e), or 457, Internal Revenue Code . . . . UTAH CODE § 78B-5-505(1)(a). And this exemption provides that: 2 (1)(a) An individual is entitled to exemption of the following property: . . . (xv) the interest of any money or other assets payable to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4304357 Extracted reporter citation: 754 A.2d 36. Docket: 440 C.D. 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4304357 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER1 FILED: August 16, 2018 Karen Gausman (Wife) seeks to compel the City of Erie Officers' and Employees' Retirement Plan (Plan) to approve a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that she negotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance expressly prohibits survivor benefits to ex-spouses. Wife filed a Moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER1 FILED: August 16, 2018 Karen Gausman (Wife) seeks to compel the City of Erie Officers' and Employees' Retirement Plan (Plan) to approve a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that she negotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: egotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance expressly prohibits survivor benefits to ex-spouses. Wife filed a Motion for Special Relief (Motion) asking the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County (common pleas) to order the Plan 1 This matter was reassigned to this author on July 9, 2018. to approve the QDRO. Common pleas denied the Motion by Order dated March 9, 2017. On appeal, Wife clai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"030dc338-185f-4578-bc62-89ceed7364ee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4304357-4304357","title":"CourtListener opinion 4304357","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"440 C.D. 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"754 A.2d 36","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ch as an annuity purchased by Participant. 3 The MSA was ultimately approved by common pleas. 4 The language that the Plan wanted omitted is reflected by strikethrough and the proposed additions are underscored. 2 10. If the Participant predeceases the Alternate Payee[5], either before or after the Participant's retirement, then the Alternate Payee shall receive the marital portion (calculated using the fraction defined in Section 8) of the Plan's 50% survivor annuity. Such survivor annuity shall be payable to the Alternate Payee for her lifetime and irrespective of her or the Participant's marital status. If there"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4305023 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 649. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4305023 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: efit until she turned 60, the applicable retirement age. Moreover, the medical benefit was personal to her, and she could not share it with Gregory or sell it. Miller suggested that the superior court could divide the PERS pension and medical benefits using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).2 Assuming \"a 50/50 division,\" Miller testified that the QDRO would assign Gregory a share of Patricia's monthly pension payment equal to 50% of the monthly pension payment plus 50% of the value of Patricia's monthly medical benefit. Because the medical benefit and pension were of comparable value, Miller's proposed QDRO would as a practical matter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: for the State\" — even though Patricia had in fact quit her job with the State during the marriage. We agree with Gregory's argument that the court erred in applying this adjusted coverture fraction. The coverture fraction is used to determine what part of a retirement benefit is marital property and what part is separate property. It should not be used to discount the value of marital property or as a guideline for equitably dividing marital property. The superior court should have characterized the retirement medical benefit as marital or separate in accordance with the actual coverture fraction, valued the benefit at its full"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a domestic violence incident. For much of the marriage — from 2001 until shortly before the parties' separation — Patricia worked for the State of Alaska.1 During that time, Patricia was enrolled in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and earned a pension and a retirement medical benefit. Patricia earned these benefits entirely during the marriage, and the benefits vested during the marriage. 1 Actually, Patricia worked for both the City of Kenai and the State. For ease of reference, in this opinion we refer to her employment as only being with the State. -2- 7273 Patricia filed for divorce soon after t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc235ed2-f466-4967-b1d4-044ae65dd8e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305023-4305023","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305023","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 649","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: she turned 60, the applicable retirement age. Moreover, the medical benefit was personal to her, and she could not share it with Gregory or sell it. Miller suggested that the superior court could divide the PERS pension and medical benefits using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).2 Assuming \"a 50/50 division,\" Miller testified that the QDRO would assign Gregory a share of Patricia's monthly pension payment equal to 50% of the monthly pension payment plus 50% of the value of Patricia's monthly medical benefit. Because the medical benefit and pension were of comparable value, Miller's proposed QDRO would as a practical matter a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4305665 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4305665 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) authorizing courts to make limited modifications to a final decree beyond the limitations of Rule 1:1. \"Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may ‘modify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.'\" Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75, 526 S.E.2d 301, 303 (2000) (alterations in original) (quoting Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)); Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780, 514 S.E.2d 80"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Va. App. 22, 26, 441 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1994) (concluding order after twenty-one days was valid because it effectuated the final decree pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)). -5- Recognizing \"the complexity of [orders relating to the division of pensions and retirement accounts] and the need to permit the modification of such orders where technical deficiencies may be contained in such orders,\" the legislature enacted Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). Dale M. Cecka, Lawrence D. Diehl & James R. Cottrell, Virginia Practice Series: Family Law: Theory, Practice, and Forms § 11:34 (2018). That code section permits the court to retain jurisd"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rial court entered a divorce decree that ratified and affirmed the parties' agreement regarding all issues of equitable distribution and spousal support. The divorce decree ordered, in part, that wife receive 50% of the marital share of husband's military pension, which was already in pay status. On the same day the trial court entered the divorce decree, it also entered an \"Order Dividing Military Pension\" intended \"to give effect to the Final Order of Divorce\" (pension order). The pension order specified that wife was \"formally assigned an annuity in the monthly amount of $1,053.39\" which was to be paid to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb0404f-1c90-4aa4-8315-382a6c31a8bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4305665-4305665","title":"CourtListener opinion 4305665","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: -107.3(K)(4) authorizing courts to make limited modifications to a final decree beyond the limitations of Rule 1:1. \"Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may ‘modify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.'\" Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75, 526 S.E.2d 301, 303 (2000) (alterations in original) (quoting Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)); Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780, 514 S.E.2d 80"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4309283 Extracted case name: LLC v. CNG. Extracted reporter citation: 808 A.2d 232. Docket: 1645 WDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309283 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): FD-11-6066-002 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. OPINION BY MUSMANNO, J. FILED AUGUST 31, 2018 Jeffrey S. Zehner (\"Husband\") appeals from the Order directing the modification of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the \"2015 QDRO\") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner (\"Wife\"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: equally divide the marital portion[1] of their respective retirement assets.\" Consent Order, 7/29/14, ¶ 2 (emphasis and footnote added). Concerning retirement assets, the Consent Order provides that Husband shall retain \"50% of the marital portion of\" his retirement plan, and 100% of the non-marital portion of his plan. Id. ¶ 3(g). Likewise, the Consent Order provides that Wife shall retain \"50% of the marital portion of\" her PSERS pension, and 100% of the non-marital portion of her pension. Id. ¶ 4(b). The Consent Order provides that \"Husband shall receive 50% of the marital portion of Wife's PSERS pension … to be div"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tion of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the \"2015 QDRO\") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner (\"Wife\"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint. Eventually, on July 29, 2014, the parties executed a Consent Order of Court for Equitable Distribution (hereinafter the \"Consent Order\"). The Consent Order sets forth the overall scheme of distribution at Paragraph 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31a1bcfb-2e7f-4098-856f-9eef102dcb2d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309283-4309283","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309283","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1645 WDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"808 A.2d 232","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: leas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): FD-11-6066-002 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. OPINION BY MUSMANNO, J. FILED AUGUST 31, 2018 Jeffrey S. Zehner (\"Husband\") appeals from the Order directing the modification of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the \"2015 QDRO\") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner (\"Wife\"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4309548 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: COA18-110. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309548 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: g money.\" The parties each submitted to the trial court a proposed equitable distribution order. Plaintiff-Husband's proposed equitable distribution order suggested the following in regard to the SEP IRA: Anderson and Strudwick SEP which is Plaintiff's retirement account with a stipulated value of $51,524.00 and Anderson and Strudwick IRA with a value of $4,783.67 which is Defendant's account. The IRA at a value of $4,783.67 is distributed to the Defendant and the SEP value of $51,524.00 is distributed to the Defendant. Defendant-Wife, however, proposed that -2- HENSON V. HENSON Opinion of the Court [t]he Ande"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt-Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, post-separation support, and alimony. The trial court entered an Equitable Distribution Order on 11 August 2015. Among the items distributed was Plaintiff-Husband's simplified employment pension IRA account (\"SEP IRA\"). While the parties stipulated that the SEP IRA was worth $51,524.00 at the time of separation, the SEP IRA had accumulated an additional $30,000 to $40,000 in growth by the date of the equitable distribution hearing. Neither party contributed to the SEP IRA after the date of separation, and Plaintiff- Husband maintained that any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2018. Kenneth P. Andresen, PLLC, by Kenneth P. Andresen, for plaintiff-appellant. Ferguson, Hayes, Hawkins & DeMay, PLLC, by James R. DeMay, for defendant-appellee ZACHARY, Judge. Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson appeals from the trial court's Domestic Relations Order and Order Denying Rule 60 Motion. Because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the Domestic Relations Order, we reverse the Order Denying Rule 60 Motion and vacate the Domestic Relations Order. Background Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson and Defendant-Wife Robin Black Henson married in June 1984 and separated in October 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce035f8-e01a-4d36-9662-b0341bb84a89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309548-4309548","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309548","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-110","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Motion and vacate the Domestic Relations Order. Background Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson and Defendant-Wife Robin Black Henson married in June 1984 and separated in October 2010. Plaintiff-Husband filed a complaint seeking absolute divorce and equitable distribution on 8 December 2011. HENSON V. HENSON Opinion of the Court On 4 January 2012, Defendant-Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, post-separation support, and alimony. The trial court entered an Equitable Distribution Order on 11 August 2015. Among the items distributed was Plaintiff-Husband's simplified employment pension IR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4309600 Extracted reporter citation: 669 N.E.2d 878. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309600 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arital portion\" sentence in the quoted provision was handwritten into the divorce decree and initialed by both parties. As to appellant's three retirement accounts, the decree further states that her counsel would be responsible for preparing the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDROs\") to implement the distribution. In relation to the trial court's continuing authority to modify the foregoing provision, the decree provides: 2 {¶5} \"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court retains jurisdiction with respect to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Division of Property Order to the extent required to ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: senthal, Thurman & Daray, 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1720, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee). THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Lisa M. Longo, appeals the trial court's post-decree finding that she has no premarital interest in her three retirement accounts. She maintains that the court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction in rendering a finding that directly conflicts with an original finding in the final divorce decree. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. {¶2} The parties to the underlying action were married for seventeen years and had three children. During the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: etirement accounts. Regarding the distribution of her accounts, the final divorce decree provides: {¶3} \"The Plaintiff, Lisa M. Longo, has an interest in the following retirement assets: (1) Mondelez Global 401(k); (2) GSK 401(k); and (3) GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan. As of July 6, 2015, the Mondelez Global Plan had a value of $29,286. As of June 30, 2015, the GSK 401(k) Plan had a balance of $503,467.58 and the GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan had a value of $129,590.95. There are no liens or encumbrances. The Plaintiff's retirement assets shall be divided by coverture fraction calculated from October 3, 1998 (d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35fc2256-c87f-4346-bd4b-ae96eaa919a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309600-4309600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309600","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"669 N.E.2d 878","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): arriage, appellant made contributions to three retirement accounts. Regarding the distribution of her accounts, the final divorce decree provides: {¶3} \"The Plaintiff, Lisa M. Longo, has an interest in the following retirement assets: (1) Mondelez Global 401(k); (2) GSK 401(k); and (3) GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan. As of July 6, 2015, the Mondelez Global Plan had a value of $29,286. As of June 30, 2015, the GSK 401(k) Plan had a balance of $503,467.58 and the GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan had a value of $129,590.95. There are no liens or encumbrances. The Plaintiff's retirement assets shall be divided by cove"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4309776 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309776 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: intained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed for such. The Former Husband agrees that the final judgment erroneously described his pension plan as being maintained by a 4 municipality and agrees the final"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: argues that the trial court made an improper award of her interest in the Former Husband's pension plan because the final judgment erroneously stated the pension plan is maintained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rred by: (1) awarding a dissipated asset to the Former Wife in the equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets; (2) awarding child support using an incorrect amount for the Former Wife's income; (3) failing to correctly describe the Former Husband's pension plan in equitably distributing the Former Wife's marital interest in the plan; and (4) failing to rule on the parties' agreement regarding life insurance. We affirm without discussion the Former Wife's remaining arguments. Background The parties were married in 1992, after which two children were born, one of whom was still a minor at the time of the fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8ab6836c-9963-4552-ba1b-51e73daf7549","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4309776-4309776","title":"CourtListener opinion 4309776","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ated the pension plan is maintained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed for such. The Former Husband agrees that the final judgment erroneously described his pension plan as being maintained by a 4 municipality and agrees the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eba0991-6dab-477f-acc2-114075d8ef75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463","title":"CourtListener opinion 4310463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4310463 Extracted case name: RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4310463 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eba0991-6dab-477f-acc2-114075d8ef75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463","title":"CourtListener opinion 4310463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eba0991-6dab-477f-acc2-114075d8ef75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463","title":"CourtListener opinion 4310463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urt of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard Butler filed a motion to set aside the order under OCGA §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eba0991-6dab-477f-acc2-114075d8ef75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463","title":"CourtListener opinion 4310463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ______ August 29, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7eba0991-6dab-477f-acc2-114075d8ef75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4310463-4310463","title":"CourtListener opinion 4310463","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard Butler filed a motion to set aside the order under OCGA §"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4311782 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTI ANNE FICEK AND LAWRENCE PETER FICEK. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-2028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311782 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h financial and non-financial contributions in determining an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 103–04 (Iowa 2007). The district court awarded Lawrence a portion of Christi's retirement account and pension account through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Christi filed a motion to amend and enlarge, asserting Lawrence wasted marital assets and it was inequitable for him to receive any part of her retirement or pension account. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c) (dividing all property equitably by considering the contribution of each party and giving value to each contribution in homemaking and child care se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l and Tabor, JJ. 2 VOGEL, Judge. Christi Ficek appeals from a decree dissolving her marriage to Lawrence Ficek. Christi argues the district court erred by granting the parties joint physical custody of their child and awarding Lawrence part of Christi's retirement account and pension account. Because joint physical care is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decree's physical care arrangement. Also, because of Lawrence's financial and nonfinancial contributions to the marriage, we affirm the district court's property distribution. We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees and tax costs to bo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: EL, Judge. Christi Ficek appeals from a decree dissolving her marriage to Lawrence Ficek. Christi argues the district court erred by granting the parties joint physical custody of their child and awarding Lawrence part of Christi's retirement account and pension account. Because joint physical care is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decree's physical care arrangement. Also, because of Lawrence's financial and nonfinancial contributions to the marriage, we affirm the district court's property distribution. We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees and tax costs to both parties eq"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a01a5fb3-6e5b-4a77-9254-ef024eb7466f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311782-4311782","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311782","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2028","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l and non-financial contributions in determining an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 103–04 (Iowa 2007). The district court awarded Lawrence a portion of Christi's retirement account and pension account through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Christi filed a motion to amend and enlarge, asserting Lawrence wasted marital assets and it was inequitable for him to receive any part of her retirement or pension account. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c) (dividing all property equitably by considering the contribution of each party and giving value to each contribution in homemaking and child care se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4311783 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSHUA ROBERT DEMMER AND JACQUELYN A. DEMMER Upon the Petition of JOSHUA ROBERT. Extracted reporter citation: 376 N.W.2d 918. Docket: 17-0831. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311783 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: their medical and dental care and the maintenance of a home in which they will reside, without much assistance from Jacque. The court does not find it proper under the current status of the law and these facts to award Jacque alimony. The court ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Orders be prepared dividing Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, ordered Josh to be responsible for the debts owed on the house and additional loans by his parents. Jacque was awarded one-half of Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, and a bank account with a balance of about $4000. The court ordered her to be responsible for $13,054.68 owed to Linn County Credit Union"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): additional interest had been added to the balance of the mortgage the parties' owed to his parents. He stated he and Jacque owed his parents $311,000. The parties had few assets. Josh had a Principal Life Insurance Policy with a cash value of $5192.16; a 401(k) plan with a value of $42,704.79; a Northwestern Mutual Roth IRA with a value of $18,100; a simple IRA with a value of $13,977.60; and a bank account with a balance of $4657.92. In addition to the $280,000 note, Josh had an outstanding promissory note in the amount of $20,000 for the original house purchase in Waterloo; one credit card debt of $11,386.03"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ical and dental care and the maintenance of a home in which they will reside, without much assistance from Jacque. The court does not find it proper under the current status of the law and these facts to award Jacque alimony. The court ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Orders be prepared dividing Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, ordered Josh to be responsible for the debts owed on the house and additional loans by his parents. Jacque was awarded one-half of Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, and a bank account with a balance of about $4000. The court ordered her to be responsible for $13,054.68 owed to Linn County Credit Union"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f257498d-c475-4ae5-8feb-f1181633e95b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311783-4311783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0831","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 N.W.2d 918","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ule. Josh did not seek any restriction or supervision of Jacque's parenting time. The trial court gave no reviewable reason for restricting the maternal grandparents' access to the children. We strike that provision of the decree. D. Spousal Support and Property Division. At the time of the dissolution trial, the parties had been married for about eight years. Josh was thirty-nine years old and Jacque was thirty-five. Both have advanced degrees and are physically healthy and capable of working. Jacque is being provided a home by her parents. Josh and the children live in the marital residence originally funded by Josh's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4311784 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARK ALAN BERG AND AMY LYNN BERG Upon the Petition of MARK ALAN BERG. Extracted reporter citation: 699 N.W.2d 260. Docket: 16-1880. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311784 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ather than thirty-three percent of the account value because the account was \"entirely marital\" and her \"contributions [to the marriage] are worth 50%.\" She does not specify how the account should have been divided. The record contains a \"Stipulation Re: Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" regarding the \"MG2, LLC dba Berg Audio & Video 401(k) plan.\" The stipulation states Amy's \"interest in the Plan shall be $55,000 of [Mark's] total vested account balance under the plan.\" Also on file is a qualified domestic relations order recognizing Amy's right to an interest in $55,000 of vested benefits in the plan. As noted, the district court aw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t acted equitably in assigning both dependent exemptions to Mark. II. Property Distribution Amy argues the property distribution portion of the decree was inequitable. In her view, (A) she should have received half rather than one-third of one of Mark's retirement accounts; (B) a pension should have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ning both dependent exemptions to Mark. II. Property Distribution Amy argues the property distribution portion of the decree was inequitable. In her view, (A) she should have received half rather than one-third of one of Mark's retirement accounts; (B) a pension should have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a net value of $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2352bc5c-0f79-4ef4-855a-bf04b79699d9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311784-4311784","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311784","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"16-1880","extracted_reporter_citation":"699 N.W.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a net value of $75,075.71, and (3) a Ubiquity retirement (formerly \"Berg Audio and Video 401(k)\" account) valued at $76,329.44. Amy did not have any retirement accounts. The district court concluded (1) the IRA accrued before the couple married and Amy was not entitled to any of it;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4311891 Extracted reporter citation: 118 A.3d 455. Docket: 124 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311891 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ersey property, may have been significantly reduced in value as a result of actions by third parties. Armed with a judgment in her favor against Husband, Wife may attempt to enforce that judgment in any manner she believes appropriate, including seeking a QDRO or a contempt order. ALIMONY -7- J-A32013-17 Wife has waived any claim for permanent alimony. COUNSEL FEES While counsel for Wife is apparently acting pro se, whatever that means in the context of this litigation, we believe Wife and her counsel are entitled to an award of attorney's fees solely because Husband's actions, including many appea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he phone the other week, [Husband]'s pension did not increase in value between 2000 and 2004, and he could never \"cash out\" his pension during that timeframe. 3. [Husband] has two pension benefits under the terms of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan. One is called his \"Benefit Credit\" Pension. The other is called his \"Legacy Credit\" pension. I address them in turn below. 4. Benefit Credit pension. The value of [Husband]'s Benefit Credit pension is/was determined based on several factors, including (i) his years of service in the NFL, (ii) the number of his years of service in the NFL, and (iii)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: in Long Branch, New Jersey, Wife calculated the four year increase in value at Twenty- Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($23,935.00). We value the Long Branch property at Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($5,984.00). D. NFL PENSION Husband's career in the NFL ended prior to the date of marriage. As best we understand the evidence, Husband did not begin receiving benefits until after the date of separation. No definitive evidence was presented with regard to any increase in value between 2000 and 2001 in Husband's NFL Pension. Because of the brief length of the marriage, we find"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045e4145-2d35-4d5c-ae38-8e45b65755f2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4311891-4311891","title":"CourtListener opinion 4311891","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124 MDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 A.3d 455","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: urt's equitable distribution order entered December 1, 2016, and as amended by the court on February 1, 2017. A divorce decree was previously entered on July 11, 2013, between Wife and Harry E. Hamilton (\"Husband\").1 Wife challenges various aspects of the equitable distribution decision. Based on the following, we affirm. The facts and procedural history are well known to the parties. Accordingly, we summarize as follows: On June 8, 2004, Wife filed a ____________________________________________  Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Husband represented himself at the trial court level and in this appeal."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddf38159-8cae-4a32-a210-992640c8d866","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211","title":"CourtListener opinion 4312211","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4312211 Extracted case name: DOWNUM v. DOWNUM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4312211 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddf38159-8cae-4a32-a210-992640c8d866","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211","title":"CourtListener opinion 4312211","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddf38159-8cae-4a32-a210-992640c8d866","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211","title":"CourtListener opinion 4312211","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 3 per month until the second child's emancipation, and half of Husband's retirement account accrued during the marriage in the Arizona State Retirement System (\"ASRS\"). The court ordered the ASRS account to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and ordered Husband to hire an attorney to prepare and file the QDRO within 30 days of the decree. The parties were ordered to \"equally pay for the cost of preparing and filing such QDRO.\" ¶3 Before the final decree was entered, Wife and Husband heavily litigated the issue of spousal maintenance. The court entered a final order in February 2014 on the bi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddf38159-8cae-4a32-a210-992640c8d866","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211","title":"CourtListener opinion 4312211","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ppeals the superior court's denial of her petition to modify spousal maintenance and the judgment entered against her for the overpayment of child support. She also contests the superior court's rulings regarding the division of Christian Downum's (\"Husband\") retirement account. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and remand in part with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Husband were married for over 27 years and they have two children in common, both of whom are now emancipated. In January 2013, Husband petitioned to dissolve the marriage, and in May 2015, the superior court entered a final dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddf38159-8cae-4a32-a210-992640c8d866","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4312211-4312211","title":"CourtListener opinion 4312211","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: month, child support of $783 per month until the second child's emancipation, and half of Husband's retirement account accrued during the marriage in the Arizona State Retirement System (\"ASRS\"). The court ordered the ASRS account to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") and ordered Husband to hire an attorney to prepare and file the QDRO within 30 days of the decree. The parties were ordered to \"equally pay for the cost of preparing and filing such QDRO.\" ¶3 Before the final decree was entered, Wife and Husband heavily litigated the issue of spousal maintenance. The court entered a final order in February 2014 on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4313328 Extracted case name: COA EDWARD WILLIAM SPEIGHTS III APPELLANT v. KIMBERLY DANIELS SPEIGHTS APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Docket: that any financial forms were exchanged. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4313328 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . At the end of the witness's testimony, the chancellor granted Kimberly a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness without further comment. ¶6. On October 4, 2016, the judgment of divorce was entered, as well as a qualified- domestic-relations order (QDRO), dividing Trey's retirement benefits from his roofing business. The chancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ness's testimony, the chancellor granted Kimberly a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness without further comment. ¶6. On October 4, 2016, the judgment of divorce was entered, as well as a qualified- domestic-relations order (QDRO), dividing Trey's retirement benefits from his roofing business. The chancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also ordered to pay $17,259.87 in credit-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also ordered to pay $17,259.87 in credit-card debt and permanently restrained from having any contact with Kimberly. ¶7. On October 24, 2016, an appearance form was entered for Trey's new attorney, along 2 Both the trial transcript and the judgment of divorce inaccurately state that the trial was held on August 21, 2016, which was a Sund"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab2d2e92-7f85-4b4c-ac71-226d25fc7cc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4313328-4313328","title":"CourtListener opinion 4313328","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that any financial forms were exchanged","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: his de facto attorneys\" for the division of marital assets at trial, when Trey failed to appear. Trey also argues the chancery court erred in failing to order the parties to submit a Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial disclosure form. Regarding the property division, Trey contends the chancery court failed to make a distinction between marital and non-marital property, and failed to support its decision with findings of fact under the Ferguson1 factors. ¶2. We affirm the grant of divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness. We also find no error in the role of Trey's parents at the trial. However, we reverse and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4314685 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4314685 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: U.S. at 851, 117 S. Ct. at 1765; see also 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(2) (anti- alienation provision does not apply to an assignment or alienation of benefits executed before September 2, 1974); (d)(3)(A) (West 2009) (anti-alienation provision does not apply to qualified domestic relations orders); Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376, 110 S. Ct. 680, 687 (1990) (declining to approve of an equitable exception to ERISA's prohibition on the assignment or alienation of pension benefits); Matter of Baker, 114 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding violations of the plan's terms and violations of ERISA by plan trustee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rop. Code Ann. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Gilbert parties then filed a second amended answer and counterclaim, adding a claim for declaratory judgment on behalf of all the Gilbert parties. They alleged that Edgefield had attempted to garnish an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and a defined benefit pension plan (which, in later pleadings, they identified as an account held in the name of the Gilbert Real Estate Brokers Defined Benefit Pension Plan (the Pension Plan)), both held at UBS and both of which they alleged were exempt from execution. 4 II. The Gilbert Parties File Motions for Summary Judgment and Edgefield"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV16-0784 Before Meier, Gabriel, and Pittman, JJ. Opinion by Justice Pittman MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Twenty-one years ago, the United States Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that \"ERISA's[1] pension plan anti-alienation provision is mandatory and contains only two explicit exceptions, . . . which are not subject to judicial expansion.\" Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 851, 117 S. Ct. 1754, 1765 (1997) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(2), (d)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). Here, the trial court granted summary judgment on that issue in favor of Appellees Kenneth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"de698d85-1c8e-4323-bc8b-0e69b33feb6d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4314685-4314685","title":"CourtListener opinion 4314685","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV16-0784 Before Meier, Gabriel, and Pittman, JJ. Opinion by Justice Pittman MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Twenty-one years ago, the United States Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that \"ERISA's[1] pension plan anti-alienation provision is mandatory and contains only two explicit exceptions, . . . which are not subject to judicial expansion.\" Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 851, 117 S. Ct. 1754, 1765 (1997) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(2), (d)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). Here, the trial court granted summary judgment on that issue in favor of Appel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4315052 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315052 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ORANDUM DECISION Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") because of an alleged clerical mistake and a judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse Francene Vincent. For lack of appellate jurisdiction, we previously dismissed his appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO and vacated the judgment awarding fees. Vincent v. Shanovich, 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC, 2017 WL 1174317, at *1, ¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cceptable Domestic Relations Order'\" relating to ASRS and (2) was \"an integral part\" of the Decree. The QDRO provided that Vincent was \"awarded 50% of [Shanovich]'s annuity, payable at the time and in the manner payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected.\" Unlike the Decree, however, the QDRO did not specify the relevant valuation date for that award. ¶4 Years later, when nearing retirement, Shanovich allegedly learned that the ASRS pension plan administrator \"interpreted the [QDRO] as awarding [Vincent] one-half of the entire retirement benefit—including the portion of the benefit [Shanovich] has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected.\" Unlike the Decree, however, the QDRO did not specify the relevant valuation date for that award. ¶4 Years later, when nearing retirement, Shanovich allegedly learned that the ASRS pension plan administrator \"interpreted the [QDRO] as awarding [Vincent] one-half of the entire retirement benefit—including the portion of the benefit [Shanovich] has accrued since the parties' divorce.\" In March 2016, Shanovich filed a motion to set aside the QDRO under Rule 85, alternatively asserting it contained a clerical mistake under Rule 85(A) (because it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"531dd045-f9bd-4432-9714-933ae7684390","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315052-4315052","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315052","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: CISION Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") because of an alleged clerical mistake and a judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse Francene Vincent. For lack of appellate jurisdiction, we previously dismissed his appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO and vacated the judgment awarding fees. Vincent v. Shanovich, 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC, 2017 WL 1174317, at *1, ¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4315583 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY J. MONAHAN AND RONAE L. MONAHAN Upon the Petition of JEFFREY J. MONAHAN. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-0904. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315583 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ension shall be divided subject to the Benson formula and to provide for interest on the equalization payment at the statutory rate. We remand this matter to the district court to apply the formula to the facts and circumstances of this case and to enter a qualified domestic relations order implementing the division. III. We next address the issue of spousal support. The district court awarded Ronae spousal support in the amount of $2000 per month commencing on July 1, 2024, after Jeff pays the final installment of the equalization payment. The spousal support will end when either party dies, Ronae remarries, or Ronae reaches the age"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: levant here, the record reflects the following with respect to the parties' employment and financial circumstances. At the time of trial, Jeff was fifty-one years old. He retired from the National Guard after twenty years of service, and he is eligible for pension benefits due to his service. He is the longtime owner and operator of a profitable auto-body shop. Ronae was fifty-three at the time of trial. She is a college graduate and holds a degree in business in addition to a cosmetology license. In 2000, Ronae opened a salon and spa with Jeff. The parties owned and operated the salon and spa until they separate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll be divided subject to the Benson formula and to provide for interest on the equalization payment at the statutory rate. We remand this matter to the district court to apply the formula to the facts and circumstances of this case and to enter a qualified domestic relations order implementing the division. III. We next address the issue of spousal support. The district court awarded Ronae spousal support in the amount of $2000 per month commencing on July 1, 2024, after Jeff pays the final installment of the equalization payment. The spousal support will end when either party dies, Ronae remarries, or Ronae reaches the age"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff3b0b05-467d-461d-b49b-2e7f24c979f4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315583-4315583","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315583","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0904","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 11, 2004). We modify the decree to provide Jeff's pension should be classified as marital property with Ronae to receive one- half of the marital share of the pension as determined by the Benson formula. We find the remainder of Ronae's challenges to the property division to be without merit. Other than failing to divide Jeff's pension, the district court sorted through the evidence, identified the marital property, valued the martial property and debts, and divided the assets and liabilities in an equitable fashion. The valuations of the property are within the range of evidence, and we will not disturb those valuation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4315797 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tebbens. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-17-0777 Rule 23 order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315797 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: th parties were represented by counsel during dissolution proceedings. ¶5 In brief, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage in October 2012, incorporating a MSA into the judgment for dissolution. In part, the MSA divided the parties' retirement accounts and pension plans. Thereafter, the pension administrator requested an order that reflected a specific dollar amount for Julie's distribution, rather than the percentage formula that was set out in the MSA. By this time, Robert was represented by new counsel. Eventually, the trial court modified the MSA over Robert's objection. Robert appealed this modi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: his marriage against Julie Tebbens. In that malpractice action, Robert claimed that his former counsel failed to submit to the trial court a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that accurately reflected the parties' intent regarding the division of Robert's pension plan between himself and Julie. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred in finding his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Robert filed his complaint against defendants in October 2014. By this complaint, Robert asserted claims for legal malpractice and breach of con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Robert was entitled to the entry of an order clarifying the dollar value of Julie's share of the pension as Robert had originally requested. ¶6 In more detail, specific to the divorce appeal, Robert challenged the trial court's entry of a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) by the circuit court, which apparently divided the pension percentage-wise in such a way that Julie took more than the parties had agreed upon. In April 2015, we reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. In that cause, we recited the following facts, which are pertinent to the present appeal: -2- \"In December 2009, Robe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1d1a4b4-5ccd-44a1-a7bd-b8ab8a1a4b9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4315797-4315797","title":"CourtListener opinion 4315797","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-0777 Rule 23 order","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d a motion to clarify both the October 31, 2012 judgment, and the December 21, 2012 order, asking the court to clarify these ‘to conform same to the parties' agreement.' In support, Robert recounted that while Paragraph 7.5 of the MSA awarded Julie 50% of the marital portion of his vested, accrued benefit under the Fireman's Annuity Fund, and awarded Robert all remaining benefits and interest, that paragraph stated a percentage amount rather than a dollar amount for Julie. According to Robert, this percentage amount was insufficient for the Firemen's Annuity Fund and Benefit Fund of Chicago to divide the asset as agreed upon by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4316093 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of September. Extracted reporter citation: 696 N.E.2d 888. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4316093 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ntered an order stating that Wife \"shall be named Alternative Payee\" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension within sixty days. [5] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey (\"the Estate\") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted. O"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: -1710-DR-2535 Petitioner, Appeal from the Lake Circuit v. Court The Honorable Marissa J. Jackie L. Hickey, McDermott, Judge The Honorable Lisa A. Berdine, Appellee-Respondent, Magistrate v. Trial Court Cause No. 45C01-0912-DR-990 ArcelorMittal USA LLC Pension Plan, Appellant-Intervenor May, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1710-DR-2535 | September 27, 2018 Page 1 of 10 [1] ArcelorMittal USA LLC Pension Plan (\"ArcelorMittal\") appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for relief from judgment, which had sought to set aside a May 23, 2014, order granting Jackie L. Hickey's (\"Wife\") mot"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: order stating that Wife \"shall be named Alternative Payee\" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension within sixty days. [5] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey (\"the Estate\") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted. O"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b869f8f2-6a2b-4050-87bb-4506a01b0dea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4316093-4316093","title":"CourtListener opinion 4316093","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"696 N.E.2d 888","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: . The parties 1 As stated in our earlier opinion, \"The parties agree that if Wife is not deemed to be Husband's widow, then she will receive no pension benefits. [ArcelorMittal] claims that this is because Wife expressly waived her right to the qualified survivor annuity at the time of Husband's retirement.\" ArcelorMittal USA, LLC Pension Plan v. Hickey, 45A03-1509-DR-1537 (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1710-DR-2535 | September 27, 2018 Page 2 of 10 still did not agree on the distribution of the marital property, nor had the value of Husband's pension been determined. Inste"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4319670 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACKIE LEA SPITZMILLER AND SCOTT LOUIS SPITZMILLER Upon the Petition of JACKIE. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 17-0803. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4319670 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Jackie married, Scott drew pension benefits, or either party died, whichever occurred first. 3 On Scott's motion for enlarged findings and conclusions, the court reduced the award to $450 per month. The court ordered Scott's pension divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, valued the home at $72,000 and awarded it to Scott together with the mortgage, distributed the vehicles and personal property, allocated student loan and medical debt to Jackie, and ordered Scott to make an equalizing payment of $9595 to Jackie. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. II. Spousal Support A court may grant spousal support for a limited"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: fifty-two years old at the time of trial, and Scott was forty-seven. Scott worked as a cement mason foreman, a job that took a toll on his back and knees. He earned between $60,000 and $68,000 in the four years preceding trial and had an employment-based pension plan that would afford him retirement income at the age of fifty-eight. Jackie was a high-school graduate. She went to cosmetology school as well as community college for highway construction, and took \"some technical engineering, mechanical drafting in the state of Colorado.\" She had employment experience as a forklift driver but most recently cleane"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rried, Scott drew pension benefits, or either party died, whichever occurred first. 3 On Scott's motion for enlarged findings and conclusions, the court reduced the award to $450 per month. The court ordered Scott's pension divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, valued the home at $72,000 and awarded it to Scott together with the mortgage, distributed the vehicles and personal property, allocated student loan and medical debt to Jackie, and ordered Scott to make an equalizing payment of $9595 to Jackie. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. II. Spousal Support A court may grant spousal support for a limited"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a455ca06-23ca-413f-96c1-794d3008c1e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319670-4319670","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319670","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-0803","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ties' earning capacity requires the court to treat this as marital debt.\" The court's treatment of the debt was equitable. IV. Disposition We modify the spousal support provision to increase the amount of spousal support to $700 per month. We affirm the property division provision in the dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS- APPEAL."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4319883 Extracted reporter citation: 588 N.E.2d 285. Docket: 2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4319883 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gust 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared and circulated for approval. The terms of the QDRO shall afford Defendant the same benefits, rights and options as the Plaintiff in the Ohio Operating Engineers plan/fund. Defendant is entitled to cost of living adjustments in the plan, to the extent of her assigned interest for Defendant's marital portion only. Morrow County, Case No. 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y counsel for each party. The agreement was read into the record. In the memorandum of agreement, the parties agreed the duration of the marriage was from August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum of agreement addresses appellant's pension plan with Ohio Operating Engineers (\"OOE\") and provides as follows: Defendant is awarded 50% of the marital portion of Plaintiff's retirement with Ohio Operating Engineers. The marital portion is defined as August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor benefic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared and circulated for approval. The terms of the QDRO shall afford Defendant the same benefits, rights and options as the Plaintiff in the Ohio Operating Engineers plan/fund. Defendant is entitled to cost of living adjustments in the plan, to the extent of her assigned interest for Defendant's marital portion only. Morrow County, Case No. 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3022f381-1b4f-4727-b714-ae6e879911bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4319883-4319883","title":"CourtListener opinion 4319883","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"588 N.E.2d 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: agreed the duration of the marriage was from August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum of agreement addresses appellant's pension plan with Ohio Operating Engineers (\"OOE\") and provides as follows: Defendant is awarded 50% of the marital portion of Plaintiff's retirement with Ohio Operating Engineers. The marital portion is defined as August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4321269 Extracted reporter citation: 134 S. Ct. 2242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4321269 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a. The state court's order dissolving the marriage adopted the parties' stipulated property settlement which awarded Lerbakken one-half of the value in his ex-wife's Wells Fargo 401K and an entire IRA account (Accounts). The order directed counsel to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order related to these assets. Based upon the available record, the briefing and representations of counsel this was not accomplished and Lerbakken has undertaken no other action to obtain title or possession of the accounts. Lerbakken filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on January 23, 2018. His Schedule C claimed the Accounts as exempt retirement funds for th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e to \"retirement funds\" is therefore properly understood to mean sums of money set aside for the day an individual stops working. Id. at 2246. The opinion clearly suggests that the exemption is limited to individuals who create and contribute funds into the retirement account. Retirement funds obtained or received by any other means do not meet this definition. In an attempt to meet the standard enunciated in Clark, Lerbakken asserts the 401K and IRA represent marital property that his ex-wife saved for their joint retirement. He further states that he intends to use the proceeds of the Accounts for support upon his retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: that his interest in the Accounts satisfies this statutory definition because the proceeds are not taxable to his ex-wife and this status inures to his benefit. The parties supply extensive arguments related to the potential tax consequences, penalties and ERISA provisions applicable to the Accounts. Standing alone, these issues are not dispositive of their exempt status. 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(12) contains two requirements: (1) that the amount must be retirement funds; and (2) that the retirement funds must be in an account that is exempt from taxation under one of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code set forth"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"720db160-b662-4276-951f-b4258428a263","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4321269-4321269","title":"CourtListener opinion 4321269","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"134 S. Ct. 2242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 16, 2018 ____________ Before SCHERMER, NAIL and SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judge, The Debtor, Brian Lerbakken, appeals the bankruptcy court's1 Order dated May 29, 2018 disallowing his claimed exemptions in a Wells Fargo 401K and an IRA account. BACKGROUND In September 2014 Lerbakken retained Sieloff & Associates, P. A. (Sieloff) to represent him in his divorce proceeding in Lake County, Minnesota. The state court's order dissolving the marriage adopted the parties' stipulated property settlement which awarded Lerbakken one-half of the value in his ex-wife's Wells Fargo 401K"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3481df23-67d7-43f7-ba83-cb11ce44facd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791","title":"CourtListener opinion 4323791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"342922 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4323791 Docket: 342922 Marquette Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4323791 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3481df23-67d7-43f7-ba83-cb11ce44facd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791","title":"CourtListener opinion 4323791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"342922 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3481df23-67d7-43f7-ba83-cb11ce44facd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791","title":"CourtListener opinion 4323791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"342922 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: duplex owned by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history would make it difficult to find work and that plai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3481df23-67d7-43f7-ba83-cb11ce44facd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791","title":"CourtListener opinion 4323791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"342922 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: -1- was also awarded a rental duplex owned by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history wou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3481df23-67d7-43f7-ba83-cb11ce44facd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4323791-4323791","title":"CourtListener opinion 4323791","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"342922 Marquette Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history would make it difficult to find work and that plai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4324382 Extracted case name: UTHE v. UTHE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4324382 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd a motorcycle in their possession. The proceeds of the 2 UTHE v. UTHE Decision of the Court sale were to be split equally. In addition to awarding Father and Mother their sole and separate property, the court ordered that Mother's 401(k) be split via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). ¶5 As to community debts, the court ordered that each party pay for half of the debt. Included in the community debt was an outstanding balance of approximately $100,000 owed to the Arizona Department of Revenue (\"ADOR\").1 The parties also had credit card debt and an outstanding home equity loan. ¶6 Father appealed the divorce decree. This court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the estimated value of Father's separate property as a credit to his share of outstanding community debts. We exercise special action jurisdiction and vacate the contempt citation. On remand, the superior court should calculate Father's portion of the 401(k) retirement account (\"401(k)\") and apply it to his past due child support and tax debt in accordance with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties married on March 9, 2004. During their marriage, the couple had two children. On November 3, 2014, Father filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, and the superior court signed a decree of dissolution o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): pplying the estimated value of Father's separate property as a credit to his share of outstanding community debts. We exercise special action jurisdiction and vacate the contempt citation. On remand, the superior court should calculate Father's portion of the 401(k) retirement account (\"401(k)\") and apply it to his past due child support and tax debt in accordance with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties married on March 9, 2004. During their marriage, the couple had two children. On November 3, 2014, Father filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, and the superior court signed a decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4509953-670c-4fbc-83be-a80e644b6c59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4324382-4324382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4324382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cycle in their possession. The proceeds of the 2 UTHE v. UTHE Decision of the Court sale were to be split equally. In addition to awarding Father and Mother their sole and separate property, the court ordered that Mother's 401(k) be split via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). ¶5 As to community debts, the court ordered that each party pay for half of the debt. Included in the community debt was an outstanding balance of approximately $100,000 owed to the Arizona Department of Revenue (\"ADOR\").1 The parties also had credit card debt and an outstanding home equity loan. ¶6 Father appealed the divorce decree. This court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4328374 Extracted case name: PAMELA ANNETTE DOTSON v. WILLIE JEFFERSON DOTSON. Extracted reporter citation: 293 S.W.3d 537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4328374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s' marriage to the date of the divorce. The parties agree that a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered to effect the division of this asset. As agreed, the circuit court entered a contemporaneous Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), approved by counsel for both parties.3 The QDRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's \"vested pension benefits\" from his employment at Nashville Electric Service (\"NES\") that had accumulated during the parties' marriage, including \"all income and benefits, under all of the various accounts and/or subaccounts established on behalf of [Husband].\" But th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: FFERSON DOTSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 24632-C Joe H. Thompson, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2017-00807-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ This post-divorce dispute concerns the enforcement of a retirement benefits provision in a marital dissolution agreement. After the defendant retired, he refused to pay any portion of his retirement benefits to his ex-wife based on his interpretation of their marital dissolution agreement. His ex-wife disagreed with his interpretation and petitioned the trial court to enforce their agreement. Both parties moved for summary judgmen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Order shall be entered to effect the division of this asset. As agreed, the circuit court entered a contemporaneous Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), approved by counsel for both parties.3 The QDRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's \"vested pension benefits\" from his employment at Nashville Electric Service (\"NES\") that had accumulated during the parties' marriage, including \"all income and benefits, under all of the various accounts and/or subaccounts established on behalf of [Husband].\" But the Plan Administrator rejected the QDRO because NES, as a municipal entity, did not accept QDROs on its retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c0f321c-eeb4-40a4-a523-fa7d281f5b0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328374-4328374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"293 S.W.3d 537","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): /Local Government Pensions, TENN. B.J., May 2016, at 30. No further action was taken before Husband's retirement. On June 1, 2015, Husband retired. Shortly thereafter he began receiving retirement benefits from NES. It is undisputed that Husband never had a 401(k) retirement plan. All of Husband's retirement benefits that accumulated during the marriage came from a defined benefit pension plan and a 457 deferred compensation plan established for NES employees. When Husband refused to pay any portion of his benefits to Wife, she filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tennessee, to enforce the retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4328576 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DARREN M. BECHTHOLD AND ANGELA J. BECHTHOLD Upon the Petition of DARREN M. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 17-1191. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4328576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tic 15 relations order but Angela's is not. We modify the decree by holding each party is entitled to substantially similar marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions and the survivor benefits provided to Darren as to Angela's pension in a qualified domestic relations order should be substantially similar to those provided to Angela as to Darren's pension. D. Spousal Support Darren argues the district court erred in granting Angela an award of traditional spousal support in the amount of $500.00. He implies he cannot afford to pay Angela any spousal support. Angela challenges the spousal-support award as inadequate and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rd of attorney fees in favor of Angela. Darren also alleged the court erred in including cash medical support in its child- 7 support calculation and challenged the provision in the decree requiring him to maintain Angela as the primary beneficiary of his pension. Darren requested that both parties receive marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions. Finally, Darren requested \"further clarification\" on the sharing of expenses for JB1. Thereafter, Darren filed a petition to modify pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012. Therein, Darren alleged his tax liability flowing from the 2016 sale"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): years of age. He has a bachelor's degree and works as a maintenance engineer for an implement manufacturer, a position in which he earns $95,046.33 per year. In recent years, Darren has averaged just over $16,000.00 in annual voluntary contributions to his 401k plan. In addition to his regular employment, Darren has assisted his father with farming for most of his life and the two have operated a farming partnership, Bechthold Farms. In the early 2000s, Darren started his own angus-breeding business. The business has \"progressed\" over the years, and Darren has developed a reputation in the industry based on t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fa4d51a-c5ac-42e0-90d9-0d1931b1a166","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4328576-4328576","title":"CourtListener opinion 4328576","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1191","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: elations order but Angela's is not. We modify the decree by holding each party is entitled to substantially similar marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions and the survivor benefits provided to Darren as to Angela's pension in a qualified domestic relations order should be substantially similar to those provided to Angela as to Darren's pension. D. Spousal Support Darren argues the district court erred in granting Angela an award of traditional spousal support in the amount of $500.00. He implies he cannot afford to pay Angela any spousal support. Angela challenges the spousal-support award as inadequate and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4329317 Docket: 339028 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4329317 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ater in life in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that \"[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged.\" The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled \"nondischargeability of obligations and debts,\" stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ies were married later in life in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that \"[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged.\" The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled \"nondischargeability of obligations and debts"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fe in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that \"[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged.\" The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled \"nondischargeability of obligations and debts,\" stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"db1ea50a-1292-43a2-aef9-f9fc03caf202","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4329317-4329317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4329317","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"339028 Lenawee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: j v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 284 Mich App 513, 519; 773 NW2d 758 (2009). Still, we \"may review an unpreserved issue if it is an issue of law for which all the relevant facts are available.\" Id. The division of marital debt is included in the personal property division of the judgment of divorce. However, the division of marital property (which includes the negative asset: debt)1 1 See ICLE, Michigan Family Law (2017), § 15.37, p 921 (\"In general, debts are treated as negative assets in valuing an overall property award and courts typically allocate them according to the same equitable principles that govern property di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4330628 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 8945-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330628 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: poraneous with this divorce decree, the State trial court issued a domestic relations order concerning the division of Ms. Schroeder's pension and retirement benefits. This domestic relations order purports to meet the requirements of section 414(p) as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The State court issued an additional such order with respect to Ms. Schroeder's 401(k) plan on May 12, 1989. Petitioner has challenged in both State and Federal court the validity of the divorce decree, arguing that the divorce decree is void for want of due process. During 1992, the year in issue, Aetna Life & Casualty (Aetna), issued petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ction of determining a deficiency and issuing a notice of same to his former spouse, has made an admission against interest as to who is to bear the tax liability for various distributions made to petitioner from his former spouse's qualified pension and retirement plans. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not take inconsistent positions against two taxpayers in separate notices of deficiency with respect a single tax liability because to do so necessarily undermines the factual basis upon which her determinations are premised. Thus, petitioner claims that he is entitled to summary adjudication in his favor beca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ent, by her action of determining a deficiency and issuing a notice of same to his former spouse, has made an admission against interest as to who is to bear the tax liability for various distributions made to petitioner from his former spouse's qualified pension and retirement plans. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not take inconsistent positions against two taxpayers in separate notices of deficiency with respect a single tax liability because to do so necessarily undermines the factual basis upon which her determinations are premised. Thus, petitioner claims that he is entitled to summary adjudicat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ddbcf61-f8d2-47c2-a20c-b18fac89239a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330628-4330628","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330628","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8945-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Schroeder's pension and retirement benefits. This domestic relations order purports to meet the requirements of section 414(p) as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The State court issued an additional such order with respect to Ms. Schroeder's 401(k) plan on May 12, 1989. Petitioner has challenged in both State and Federal court the validity of the divorce decree, arguing that the divorce decree is void for want of due process. During 1992, the year in issue, Aetna Life & Casualty (Aetna), issued petitioner a check for $9,395 from Ms. Schroeder's section 403(b) tax shelter annuity (TSA). Aetna al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4330687 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 899-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330687 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: made for life; (5) to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Petitioner concedes that none of the described section 72(t)(2) exemptions apply in his case. Petitioner contends, however, that, due to his financial hardship, the distributions should be exempt from section 72(t), and that, in not allowing a financial hardship exemption, section 72(t) is contrary to public policy and violates his constitutional ri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax imposed under section 72(t) on early distributions from qualified retirement plans. Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's legal residence was Walnut Creek, California. Prior to and during the year at issue, petitioner was a self-employed insurance agent, specializing in the sale of long-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ng- term care insurance. Petitioner represented the Aetna and CNA insurance companies. During 1992, petitioner was participating in two retirement plans offered by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Northwestern). One plan was a simplified employee pension (SEP) plan for self-employed individuals qualified under section 408(b) and (k); the other was a Keogh plan qualified under section 401(a). Each of these plans was funded 100 percent by petitioner. Petitioner did not represent or sell any insurance contracts offered by Northwestern. Beginning in 1988 and continuing in 1992, petitioner sustained a do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf4c6d24-4378-4ae7-81c2-85c190c103ea","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330687-4330687","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330687","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"899-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ially equal periodic payments made for life; (5) to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Petitioner concedes that none of the described section 72(t)(2) exemptions apply in his case. Petitioner contends, however, that, due to his financial hardship, the distributions should be exempt from section 72(t), and that, in not allowing a financial hardship exemption, section 72(t) is contrary to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e22fad9e-3c94-4ace-8ce6-7e295fec65ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15334-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4330783 Docket: 15334-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330783 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e22fad9e-3c94-4ace-8ce6-7e295fec65ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15334-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e22fad9e-3c94-4ace-8ce6-7e295fec65ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15334-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint return together with her new spouse, Mr. Clawson. Mr. Clawson's liability is not an issue in this case. In D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e22fad9e-3c94-4ace-8ce6-7e295fec65ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15334-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: without trial under the provisions of Rule 122. Accordingly, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint return together with her new spouse, Mr. Clawson. Mr. C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e22fad9e-3c94-4ace-8ce6-7e295fec65ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330783-4330783","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330783","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15334-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ted to the Court upon a full stipulation of facts and exhibits without trial under the provisions of Rule 122. Accordingly, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4330939 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 6115-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330939 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: xable on the entire distribution. P contends that he is not liable for tax on the portion of the distribution paid to his former wife and the portion used to satisfy the mortgage because the payments were made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), as defined by sec. 414(p), I.R.C. Held: The divorce decree rendered after the lump-sum distribution to P does not meet the requirements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the early"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the early distribution from a qualified retirement plan pursuant to sec. 72(t), I.R.C. John L. Onesto, for petitioner. Donald K. Rogers and Matthew J. Fritz, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION NIMS, Judge:* Respondent determined a deficiency in the 1991 Federal income tax of petitioner Jerry L. Burton in the amount of $53,916, stemming from funds received by petitioner in connection with the closing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: T.C. Memo. 1997-20 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JERRY L. BURTON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6115-95. Filed January 13, 1997. P received a lump-sum distribution from two accounts under a qualified pension plan in 1991. Pursuant to a divorce decree entered shortly thereafter, part of the distribution was used to pay off the mortgage on P's former residence and to pay his ex-wife $30,000. P reported the distribution as income on his 1991 Federal income tax return, but included the amount used to satisfy his mortgage obligation and the amount paid to his ex-wif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a19e276a-1641-4505-8852-0d4f862ebc2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4330939-4330939","title":"CourtListener opinion 4330939","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6115-95","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd determined that P is taxable on the entire distribution. P contends that he is not liable for tax on the portion of the distribution paid to his former wife and the portion used to satisfy the mortgage because the payments were made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), as defined by sec. 414(p), I.R.C. Held: The divorce decree rendered after the lump-sum distribution to P does not meet the requirements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70216374-4536-428d-ae87-46fb4264cc2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479","title":"CourtListener opinion 4331479","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27001-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4331479 Docket: 27001-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4331479 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70216374-4536-428d-ae87-46fb4264cc2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479","title":"CourtListener opinion 4331479","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27001-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70216374-4536-428d-ae87-46fb4264cc2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479","title":"CourtListener opinion 4331479","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27001-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court), issued an interlocutory judgment that dissolved the marriage and awarded Mrs. Glassman a portion of Mr. Oddino's retirement benefits. On March 24, 1989, the Superior Court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that modified and clarified the interlocutory judgment. The QDRO directed the Hughes Plan to: (1) Pay Mrs. Glassman 36.6231 percent of Mr. Oddino's \\accrued benefit[s] as of April 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"70216374-4536-428d-ae87-46fb4264cc2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4331479-4331479","title":"CourtListener opinion 4331479","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27001-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court), issued an interlocutory judgment that dissolved the marriage and awarded Mrs. Glassman a portion of Mr. Oddino's retirement benefits. On March 24, 1989, the Superior Court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that modified and clarified the interlocutory judgment. The QDRO directed the Hughes Plan to: (1) Pay Mrs. Glassman 36.6231 percent of Mr. Oddino's \\accrued benefit[s] as of April 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4332713 Extracted reporter citation: 857 P.2d 631. Docket: 17 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4332713 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Petitioner has not produced any 7 Sec. 408(d)(6) governs the transfer of an \"individual's interest\" in an IRA. It does not address distributions. In contrast, distributions from a qualified pension plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order may be reallocated to a spouse (designated as the \"alternate payee\" and considered a plan \"beneficiary\"). See sec. 402(e)(1)(A); 29 U.S.C. sec. 1056(d)(3)(J) (1993). 8 Sec. 72(t)(1) provides: Imposition of additional tax.--If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: racy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a). After concessions,1 we must decide the following issues with respect to 1993: 1. Whether petitioner's gross income includes the entire $125,000 in distributions he received from his individual retirement accounts (IRA's). We hold it does. 1 Petitioner concedes the following: (1) His gross income includes a $64,054 gain on the sale of his home; (2) he may deduct only $1,476 of the $11,735 claimed for legal and professional fees paid; (3) he may not deduct the $11,000 claimed with respect to the purchase of a horse, but may take a Schedule F, Profit or Loss From F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the case may be, in the manner provided under section 72.\" Neither the Code nor applicable regulations define the terms \"distributee\" or \"payee\" as used in section 408(d)(1). In construing a parallel provision governing the taxation of distributions from pension plans under section 402,4 we have held that a distributee is generally \"the participant or beneficiary who, under the plan, is entitled to receive the distribution\". Darby v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 58 (1991); see also Estate of Machat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-154. Under this definition, petitioner would be the distributee and the payee beca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"071aba56-2e5c-4301-a621-7950063541f6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4332713-4332713","title":"CourtListener opinion 4332713","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"857 P.2d 631","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: d)(6) governs the transfer of an \"individual's interest\" in an IRA. It does not address distributions. In contrast, distributions from a qualified pension plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order may be reallocated to a spouse (designated as the \"alternate payee\" and considered a plan \"beneficiary\"). See sec. 402(e)(1)(A); 29 U.S.C. sec. 1056(d)(3)(J) (1993). 8 Sec. 72(t)(1) provides: Imposition of additional tax.--If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable year in which such amount is received s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4333097 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 8423-98. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4333097 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ntly on public assistance through the receipt of AFDC. * * * The Former Husband's child support obligation, commencing June 1, 1995, shall be * * * $1234.25 per month * * * * * * * 10. The Court has previously entered a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to the Former Husband's Capital Accumulation Plan (T-CAP). The Court's Order was dated November 10, 1994. That Order is hereby set aside and shall have no force and effect. - 6 - The Court has also previously Ordered, in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995, that a QDRO be issued to E-Systems in the amount of $22,500 for unallocated support. That se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: He has dissipated or hidden every asset which he could control since the pendency of this action. 8. Until the hearing of June 29, 1995, the Former Wife had been unable and prohibited by the Former Husband from discovering the value of the Former Husband's pension and profit-sharing benefits at his former employer. 9. At this time the Former Wife is unable to be employed outside of the home because of the attention required by the parties' disabled child. She, however, is seeking to become employed in the future and is currently seeking employment. In the interim, because the Former Husband has refused to pay child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , the Former Wife is presently on public assistance through the receipt of AFDC. * * * The Former Husband's child support obligation, commencing June 1, 1995, shall be * * * $1234.25 per month * * * * * * * 10. The Court has previously entered a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to the Former Husband's Capital Accumulation Plan (T-CAP). The Court's Order was dated November 10, 1994. That Order is hereby set aside and shall have no force and effect. - 6 - The Court has also previously Ordered, in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995, that a QDRO be issued to E-Systems in the amount of $22,500 for unallocated support. T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"683f2aa3-b4e2-422d-838f-29ae6c1ce5d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4333097-4333097","title":"CourtListener opinion 4333097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8423-98","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ) or from the Former Husband's ESOP, whichever is appropriate, for which a QDRO shall issue in full settlement of the back child support ($22,500 as previously Ordered by the Court in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995) and the remainder ($32,900) as other equitable distribution. Therefore, a single QDRO shall be ordered, in the amount of $55,400, of which $22,500 is for a child support obligation and $32,900 is for equitable distribution pursuant to the parties agreement of June 29, 1995. The Wife's claim for unallocated alimony is merged into this Supplemental Final Judgment thus rendering any claim for alimony pendente lite"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4334344 Docket: 7036-02S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4334344 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: haring plan at Moore Corporation into an IRA, a qualified retirement plan, at Payne County Bank (PCB) in Perkins, Oklahoma. On November 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregate for the benefit of Alvetta Mills, the alternate payee, the sum of $17,745 along with the interest accruing between November 14, 1997, until the date of distribution. Petitioner signed on January 10, 1998, an \\IRA Distribution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: be cited as authority. - 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $2,901 for 1998. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner may deduct the Federal income tax withheld from a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on an early distribution from a qualified retirement plan. The stipulated facts and exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Jennings, Oklahoma. Background In 1994, petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): an. The stipulated facts and exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Jennings, Oklahoma. Background In 1994, petitioner rolled over an amount from his 401(k) profit sharing plan at Moore Corporation into an IRA, a qualified retirement plan, at Payne County Bank (PCB) in Perkins, Oklahoma. On November 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"41e5a311-b0bf-40e0-8cd5-51c675f32b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334344-4334344","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334344","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"7036-02S","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: vember 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregate for the benefit of Alvetta Mills, the alternate payee, the sum of $17,745 along with the interest accruing between November 14, 1997, until the date of distribution. Petitioner signed on January 10, 1998, an \\IRA Distribution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4334792 Extracted reporter citation: 140 F.3d 240. Docket: 10499-02. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4334792 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 04 T.C. 417 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998). The doctrine is applied against the Government with the utmost 14 (...continued) Special rules apply to partial rollovers of property. For more details on rollovers, including distributions under qualified domestic relations orders, see Pub. 575. Lump-Sum Distributions If you received a lump-sum distribution from a profit- sharing or retirement plan, your Form 1099-R should have the \\Total distribution\\\" box in box 2b checked. You may owe an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pointed State official, petitioner was required to and did file personal financial statements with the Texas Ethics Commission. When petitioner commenced law practice, most firms did not have retirements plans. Petitioner undertook his own financial and retirement planning, which he continued throughout his career. Initially, he invested primarily in certificates of - 4 - deposit (regular CDs). Later, some of his CDs were converted into or purchased as individual retirement accounts (IRA CDs). To the extent pertinent to the issues before the Court, petitioner's retirement planning transactions are described below i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e a section 401(k) retirement plan, and that motivated petitioner to engage in an additional retirement planning transaction based on the advice of the accountant for his former law firm, Mr. Wendel. Because of his understanding that a simplified employee pension (SEP) plan allowed for greater funding than an IRA, petitioner purchased an SEP plan late in 1996.7 However, he became concerned about possible tax consequences of participating in a 401(k) plan and an SEP plan in the same year. He therefore terminated the SEP plan and deposited the funds from the SEP into the SFB nonqualified annuity, again with the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df798814-a12a-42f4-bb83-aa2734e5b70c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4334792-4334792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4334792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10499-02","extracted_reporter_citation":"140 F.3d 240","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ore the Court, petitioner's retirement planning transactions are described below in greater detail. In 1993, petitioner became a name partner in the law firm of Oldenettel & Sadberry. His partner was Rick Oldenettel. The law firm had a qualified section 401(k) retirement plan in which petitioner participated. The firm accountant was Dan Wendel, from whom petitioner sought informal personal tax and retirement advice from time to time during his tenure with the law firm and thereafter. During 1996, petitioner purchased a number of annuities. In May, he purchased a nonqualified annuity from Glenbrook Life and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb1654b7-f07d-4597-9109-239131b3b332","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8964-03","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4335340 Docket: 8964-03. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4335340 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb1654b7-f07d-4597-9109-239131b3b332","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8964-03","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb1654b7-f07d-4597-9109-239131b3b332","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8964-03","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received a taxable distribution of $77,000 from Lee Seidel's (petitioner's former husband) section 401(k) plan (401(k) plan) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which designated her as the alternate payee; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to business deductions and cost of goods sold claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for an activity named Port of Mystery, involving the sale and repair of antique jewelry; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax pursuant to sectio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb1654b7-f07d-4597-9109-239131b3b332","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8964-03","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received a taxable distribution of $77,000 from Lee Seidel's (petitioner's former husband) section 401(k) plan (401(k) plan) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which designated her as the alternate payee; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to business deductions and cost of goods sold claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for an activity named Port of Mystery, involving the sale and repair of antique jewelry; (3) whether"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb1654b7-f07d-4597-9109-239131b3b332","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335340-4335340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335340","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"8964-03","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: k) plan began sometime between 1983 and 1985, prior to his marriage to petitioner, and continued during the marriage. Mr. Seidel's CWSC 401(k) plan consisted of a separate property interest for contributions made prior to his marriage to petitioner, and a community property interest for contributions made during his marriage to petitioner. The parties agree that the community property interest in Mr. Seidel's CWSC 401(k) plan totals $77,000. Petitioner and Mr. Seidel each entered the marriage with separate property interests. Petitioner had her own house which was encumbered by a first mortgage. Mr. Seidel had his own h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4335342 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Gillmore. Extracted reporter citation: 629 P.2d 1. Docket: 10 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4335342 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the other spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The superior court ordered petitioner and his former spouse to prepare a California qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be signed by the judge and entered in the court's record providing that the pension plan would pay petitioner's former spouse $2,072 per month when petitioner retired. Petitioner paid his former spouse $25,511 in 2000 as ordered in the divorce judgment.2 Petitioner deducted $26,604 as alimony on his 2000 Federal income tax return.3 Petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ly vested, matured, and drawable but was not paid because the employee spouse continued to work. In re Marriage of Gillmore, 629 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1981). As used in this Opinion, the term \"nonemployee spouse\" is the spouse with a community property interest in the retirement benefits of the other spouse (the employee spouse). If both spouses have earned rights in retirement plans, each spouse is the \"nonemployee spouse\" in relation to the retirement rights of the other spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The sup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 124 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN MICHAEL DUNKIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4448-03. Filed March 31, 2005. Petitioner (P), who was divorced, was entitled to retire and receive pension payments. If P had retired, his former spouse would have been entitled under California community property law to receive an amount from P equal to one-half of his pension. However, P continued working, delaying his receipt of pension benefits. During the years P continued working, P's former spouse was entitled under California community property law to re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f326c5c-2adf-4151-83b2-ed297dd9f9e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4335342-4335342","title":"CourtListener opinion 4335342","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"629 P.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: er spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The superior court ordered petitioner and his former spouse to prepare a California qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be signed by the judge and entered in the court's record providing that the pension plan would pay petitioner's former spouse $2,072 per month when petitioner retired. Petitioner paid his former spouse $25,511 in 2000 as ordered in the divorce judgment.2 Petitioner deducted $26,604 as alimony on his 2000 Federal income tax return.3 Petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4337353 Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 15 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4337353 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 131 T.C. No. 15 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LARRY G. AND MARIA A. WALTON MITCHELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 2518-04. Filed December 15, 2008. P-W received distributions during 2001 made pursuant to a QDRO after her ex-husband retired from the U.S. Air Force. Ps did not include the 2001 distribution in income when they filed their joint 2001 Federal tax return. R issued a notice of deficiency in which he determined that Ps were liable for income tax on the distribution. Held: Distributions received by P-W are income to P-W and are includable in petitioners'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: benefits and that if petitioner's share were taxed, it would be subject to double taxation. A trial was held on June 24, 2005, in Los Angeles, California. Discussion Petitioners argue that taxes should have been withheld on the entire amount of the pension payments disbursed to Mr. Walton before petitioner was paid her share. Petitioners maintain that if petitioner is required to pay Federal income tax on her share, then Mr. Walton's pension is being subject to double taxation, both on disbursement to Mr. Walton and again when petitioner receives her share. Respondent argues that tax was withheld only o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: spect to distributions allocated to that spouse pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions therefore become taxable income to that spouse. The spouse receiving the distribution pursuant to the QDRO is also known as an \"alternate payee\". Secs. 402(e)(1)(A), 414(p)(8). A domestic relations order (DRO) qualifies as a QDRO only if it: (1) Creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan; (2) clearly specifies facts required by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"784292da-bd67-45e3-ab77-f46081e6da0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4337353-4337353","title":"CourtListener opinion 4337353","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 UNITED STATES TAX","extracted_reporter_citation":"453 U.S. 210","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Under section 402(a) a pension distribution is normally taxed to the distributee. Pursuant to section 402(e)(1)(A), the spouse or former spouse is treated as the distributee with respect to distributions allocated to that spouse pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions therefore become taxable income to that spouse. The spouse receiving the distribution pursuant to the QDRO is also known as an \"alternate payee\". Secs. 402(e)(1)(A), 414(p)(8). A domestic relations order (DRO) qualifies as a QDRO only if it: (1) Creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4342312 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 962 N.E.2d 1224. Docket: 18A-DR-249 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4342312 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enty years of service, are at least fifty-two years old, and have separated from service. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 23 (Finding 37); see also Ex. 1. Unlike other pensions, the 1977 Fund pension is not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 1 According to INPRS, The fund is not required by federal law to honor [QDROs]. The 1977 Fund is not authorized by law to split payments between payees. . . . The Fund will not make any payments directly to a Fund Member's alternate payee under a QDRO. . . . The Fund will also not make any payments prior to the time that distributions would other"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sion was earned during the marriage. The court then ordered Husband, once he retires, to forward half of 77.2%, or 38.6%, of his monthly pension payment to Wife each month and then issue her a Form 1099-R (an IRS form for distributions from pensions and retirement plans) so that Wife pays the taxes on her share of his pension. In addition, the court found that Wife, who receives social-security disability payments for injuries she sustained in a car accident, is entitled to rehabilitative maintenance and ordered Husband to pay her $1000/month for twenty-four months. Finally, the court ordered each party to pay t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 7, the trial court issued a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. In the decree, the court used a coverture fraction to determine that 77.2% of Husband's Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-249 | November 16, 2018 Page 1 of 23 firefighters' pension was earned during the marriage. The court then ordered Husband, once he retires, to forward half of 77.2%, or 38.6%, of his monthly pension payment to Wife each month and then issue her a Form 1099-R (an IRS form for distributions from pensions and retirement plans) so that Wife pays the taxes on her share of his pension. In addition, the court foun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9de4f5b6-644e-431c-8dcc-3058503bc843","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4342312-4342312","title":"CourtListener opinion 4342312","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-249 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"962 N.E.2d 1224","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ic Relations Order (QDRO).1 1 According to INPRS, The fund is not required by federal law to honor [QDROs]. The 1977 Fund is not authorized by law to split payments between payees. . . . The Fund will not make any payments directly to a Fund Member's alternate payee under a QDRO. . . . The Fund will also not make any payments prior to the time that distributions would otherwise begin to the member by law. This means that the member must have actually retired or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-249 | November 16, 2018 Page 3 of 23 [5] About three-and-a-half years after Husband began working as a firefig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4343066 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Trogdon. Docket: COA18-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343066 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: entered an order for postseparation support requiring Husband to pay Wife $2,000 a month. On 25 July 2016, the trial court entered a judgment and order on equitable distribution; this order was not appealed. On 16 September 2016, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") which was also not appealed. The trial court held a hearing on Wife's alimony claim on 9 September 2016 and on 31 July 2017, the trial court entered an order awarding Wife alimony and attorney fees. The trial court determined Husband had committed acts of martial misconduct, including illicit sexual behavior. Husband was ordered to pay wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: has little to no independent source of retirement -7- REA V. REA Opinion of the Court income, but did receive a portion of the Plaintiff's retirement in the Order for Equitable Distribution.\" Husband contends there was no evidence of the value of his retirement account before the trial court \"at the time of the trial.\" But Husband testified quite extensively about his 401K account, including the large sums he had removed from the account. Husband does not dispute that Wife had no retirement savings other than the portion of Husband's retirement she received in their equitable distribution. The trial court did not find"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rtion of the Plaintiff's retirement in the Order for Equitable Distribution.\" Husband contends there was no evidence of the value of his retirement account before the trial court \"at the time of the trial.\" But Husband testified quite extensively about his 401K account, including the large sums he had removed from the account. Husband does not dispute that Wife had no retirement savings other than the portion of Husband's retirement she received in their equitable distribution. The trial court did not find an exact amount of Husband's retirement but rather noted the funds were \"significant\" due to his income a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c3ff544-e6cc-4d01-8a93-7359b8eb18f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343066-4343066","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-95","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n order for postseparation support requiring Husband to pay Wife $2,000 a month. On 25 July 2016, the trial court entered a judgment and order on equitable distribution; this order was not appealed. On 16 September 2016, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") which was also not appealed. The trial court held a hearing on Wife's alimony claim on 9 September 2016 and on 31 July 2017, the trial court entered an order awarding Wife alimony and attorney fees. The trial court determined Husband had committed acts of martial misconduct, including illicit sexual behavior. Husband was ordered to pay wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12da7d2e-65c2-4595-afa6-f9909a96d45b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343282","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4343282 Extracted case name: COA MARSHA P. NELSON APPELLANT v. JAMES A. NELSON APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343282 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12da7d2e-65c2-4595-afa6-f9909a96d45b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343282","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12da7d2e-65c2-4595-afa6-f9909a96d45b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343282","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecord, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. James A. Nelson and Marsha married on August 4, 1991. During their marriage, they had two daughters—Jasha and Jada.2 Around November 2008, the parties separated, and on 1 This order is substantively a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" 2 To protect the identity of the minor child, we have chosen to refer to her as \"Jada.\" April 6, 2010, their divorce was granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court also approved a property settlement agreement for both James and Marsha. Less than a year later, the parties began filing motions, petitions, and complaints against eac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12da7d2e-65c2-4595-afa6-f9909a96d45b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343282-4343282","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343282","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. James A. Nelson and Marsha married on August 4, 1991. During their marriage, they had two daughters—Jasha and Jada.2 Around November 2008, the parties separated, and on 1 This order is substantively a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" 2 To protect the identity of the minor child, we have chosen to refer to her as \"Jada.\" April 6, 2010, their divorce was granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court also approved a property settlement agreement for both James and Marsha. Less than a year later, the parties began filing motions, petitions, and complaints against eac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 43436 Extracted reporter citation: 131 F.3d 1120. Docket: 04-31184 -2- district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 43436 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rejected on the basis that Audry Gaudet's interest was contingent upon her husband's interest. The district court noted also that the Government's lien created by the filing of the restitution order primed the lien established by the filing of a purported qualified domestic relations order. The Gaudets contend only that, as a matter of state law, Audry Gaudet's community property interest vested at the moment of the acquisition of the property. The Gaudets have not shown that the district court plainly erred. See Crawford, 131 F.3d at 1123. No. 04-31184 -4- Moreover, even if we were to determine that the district court plainly erred,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s court has discretion to correct the forfeited error, discretion that should not be exercised \"‘unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'\" Id. (quoting Olano). The Gaudets contend that the pension benefits held by the LUCPF are exempt from seizure under the anti-alienation provision of ERISA and that the garnishment order is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990), and this court's decision in Herberger v. Shanbaum, 897 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir. 1990). The Gaudets cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: nless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'\" Id. (quoting Olano). The Gaudets contend that the pension benefits held by the LUCPF are exempt from seizure under the anti-alienation provision of ERISA and that the garnishment order is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990), and this court's decision in Herberger v. Shanbaum, 897 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir. 1990). The Gaudets contend that the district court's decision constitutes an improper retroactive application of the 199"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee6ba93f-6d3b-4835-998f-ddcae2c46715","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-43436-43436","title":"CourtListener opinion 43436","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-31184 -2- district","extracted_reporter_citation":"131 F.3d 1120","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n the basis that Audry Gaudet's interest was contingent upon her husband's interest. The district court noted also that the Government's lien created by the filing of the restitution order primed the lien established by the filing of a purported qualified domestic relations order. The Gaudets contend only that, as a matter of state law, Audry Gaudet's community property interest vested at the moment of the acquisition of the property. The Gaudets have not shown that the district court plainly erred. See Crawford, 131 F.3d at 1123. No. 04-31184 -4- Moreover, even if we were to determine that the district court plainly erred,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49bf1f8a-571b-4b02-b12c-8d1f766479a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27928 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4343604 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Docket: 27928 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49bf1f8a-571b-4b02-b12c-8d1f766479a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27928 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49bf1f8a-571b-4b02-b12c-8d1f766479a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27928 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s still an issue. Do we have an agreement on preparation of that? I think it's a co-app. -24- [Moore's counsel]: For FERS? We will go back in and work that. [RUCKS'S COUNSEL]: So the husband will be responsible for the cost of preparing the co-app or QDRO and if there is any administrative fees with court costs, we'll split those. (Emphasis added.) (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 28-29). {¶ 43} Although Moore correctly observes that it was Rucks's attorney who stated that Moore would pay the cost of preparing a COAP for the FERS account, her statement was a reasonable interpretation of Moore's attorney's statement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49bf1f8a-571b-4b02-b12c-8d1f766479a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27928 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: {¶ 10} The classification of property is governed by R.C. 3105.171. Per R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a), \"marital property\" includes: (i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the -5- marriage; (ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49bf1f8a-571b-4b02-b12c-8d1f766479a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4343604-4343604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4343604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27928 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: x months. 5) The trial Court erred in setting the amount of child support. 6) The trial Court erred in ordering that [Moore] was responsible for the cost of preparing a COAP with regard to his FERS account. First, Second and Third Assignments of Error—Property Division {¶ 6} In his first, second and third assignments of error, Moore challenges the trial court's treatment of certain property or payments as marital property rather than as separate property to be awarded to Moore alone. Because these three assignments implicate the same standard of review and the same legal principles governing the division of property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f91a3fcb-cee7-4d1b-8c54-5f582da7c3bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4344096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00014-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4344096 Extracted reporter citation: 411 S.W.3d 445. Docket: 13-17-00014-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4344096 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f91a3fcb-cee7-4d1b-8c54-5f582da7c3bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4344096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00014-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f91a3fcb-cee7-4d1b-8c54-5f582da7c3bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4344096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00014-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Rita Alejandro appeals the trial court's entry of the Third Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on the sole ground that it does not accurately reflect the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 See TEX. FAM. CODE 1 Appellee Efrain Alejandro did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 afte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f91a3fcb-cee7-4d1b-8c54-5f582da7c3bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4344096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00014-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 after reaching an MSA. The MSA described the distribution of Efrain's retirement plan with the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) as follows: EFRAIN ALEJANDRO will keep the retirement through his employment. EFRAIN ALEJANDRO represents that the amount in his retirement is $100,000.00 as of today's date. Upon verification, if EFRAIN ALEJANDRO's retirement exceeds $100,000.00 as of today's date, the excess amount will be divided e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f91a3fcb-cee7-4d1b-8c54-5f582da7c3bc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4344096-4344096","title":"CourtListener opinion 4344096","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00014-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Rita Alejandro appeals the trial court's entry of the Third Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on the sole ground that it does not accurately reflect the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 See TEX. FAM. CODE 1 Appellee Efrain Alejandro did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 afte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4346131 Extracted reporter citation: 368 P.2d 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4346131 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vision. The parties appeared before the superior court in June to argue whether David should retain Linda's half of his monthly pension payments until the equalization payment she owed him was extinguished or whether David's pension should be split 50/50 via Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court issued an order immediately entitling David to half of Linda's marital IRA and directed the parties to determine whether Linda's equalization payment to David would be made in a lump sum, with his pension payments then split equally, or whether he would retain his pension payments in full until Linda's equalization payment was offset. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t the time of trial Linda was 52 and David was 62; Linda was in \"better health,\" and \"David's health [was] quite poor.\" Linda was employed as a billing manager in a local law firm, and her future income was secure; she had about $6,000 in savings; she had two retirement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017, when he would become eligible for Medicare. The court also found that Linda cared for the couple's minor daughter in the family home and received child support from David's Social Security disability benefits; and that David lived in his truck, but wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7892bf-0adf-4531-8045-d3f81c4c0f8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4346131-4346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 4346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"368 P.2d 546","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 's health [was] quite poor.\" Linda was employed as a billing manager in a local law firm, and her future income was secure; she had about $6,000 in savings; she had two retirement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017, when he would become eligible for Medicare. The court also found that Linda c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4347428 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBORAH WHITFORD AND RICHARD WHITFORD Upon the Petition of DEBORAH WHITFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 807 N.W.2d 828. Docket: 17-2081. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4347428 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Office, Davenport, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. We must decide whether the district court erred in dismissing a petition to modify the language of a dissolution decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed in 2006. The decree dissolving the marriage of Deborah and Richard Whitford ordered the division of Richard's pension by the following equation: [D]ivide the pension payment in half and multiply the result by the percentage arrived at by dividing the number of years of this marriage by the number of years Richard was employed by John D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n years later. He alleged, \"The Court in both the decree and the QDRO made a mistake in the calculation of the formula to be used in dividing [his] pension.\" He also alleged \"the Court made a mistake in awarding the Petitioner survivor benefits under [his] retirement plan.\" Deborah moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that \"there is absolutely no mistake in this matter and the trial court judge has denied [him] each and every time he has asserted this argument regarding a modification of the 3 formula used to divide his pension benefits.\" She premised her motion on the principle of res judicata. In dismissing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: district court erred in dismissing a petition to modify the language of a dissolution decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed in 2006. The decree dissolving the marriage of Deborah and Richard Whitford ordered the division of Richard's pension by the following equation: [D]ivide the pension payment in half and multiply the result by the percentage arrived at by dividing the number of years of this marriage by the number of years Richard was employed by John Deere. In the event he should die before or while he is receiving pension payments Deborah shall be entitled to receive any survivor b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"243f6209-d9e9-47a6-b35f-b47c39ee8149","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347428-4347428","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-2081","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 828","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ore or while he is receiving pension payments Deborah shall be entitled to receive any survivor benefits on his pension authorized under the pension plan. The \"uncontested\" QDRO filed shortly thereafter used the following language to divide the pension: Alternate Payee, Deborah L. Whitford, as Alternate Payee of the benefit of Richard H. Whitford, Participant under the John Deere Pension Plan is awarded one half of the pension benefit multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the number of months married and the denominator shall be the total number of months worked by the Participant, Richard H. Whitford. R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4347430 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTINE Y. FREUDENBERG AND MARK WILLIAM FREUDENBERG Upon the Petition of. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 17-1569. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4347430 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Millionaire's Club Fund, and the entirety of his John Deere pension. The court awarded Mark's pension solely to him \"in light of the overall property settlement.\" The property settlement included the division of Mark's John Deere SIP account pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) using the Benson6 formula. The court awarded no attorney fees to either party. Christine appeals and Mark cross-appeals.7 6 See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996). 7 After the filing of the dissolution decree, Christine filed motion to enlarge, amend, or modify the decree pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ible to earn an end-of-the-year bonus and spot bonuses throughout the year. On occasion, Christine works full time at RSM and sought a full-time position within the company. Prior to this marriage, Christine worked at Waterloo Industries, where she had a retirement account. After Waterloo Industries shut down, she rolled the account into a new account at PDCM. After leaving PDCM, she then rolled the account into a 401(k) (American Funds), which she still had at the time of trial. Christine added to the retirement account during the five to six months she worked at PDCM after the initiation of the marriage, but after she l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nd Fidelity, approximately $77,459. The record does not reveal the time-of-marriage values of the accounts. 3 Mark's gross monthly salary is $11,374. 4 on the company's productivity. His 2016 bonus was approximately $35,000. Through John Deere, Mark had a pension, health savings account (HSA), and savings and investment plan (SIP).4 Mark's pension account is a defined benefits plan consisting of funds contributed solely from John Deere. Mark's pension was fully vested at the time of marriage, but the expected benefit continues to increase with his years of service. Mark established the SIP and HSA accounts after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"86bc3162-561c-474f-8279-d6931540b317","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4347430-4347430","title":"CourtListener opinion 4347430","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17-1569","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e company. Prior to this marriage, Christine worked at Waterloo Industries, where she had a retirement account. After Waterloo Industries shut down, she rolled the account into a new account at PDCM. After leaving PDCM, she then rolled the account into a 401(k) (American Funds), which she still had at the time of trial. Christine added to the retirement account during the five to six months she worked at PDCM after the initiation of the marriage, but after she left PDCM and rolled the funds into the 401(k), she added no other funds to the account. At the time of the marriage, Christine also had a TIAA/CREF acc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4348136 Extracted reporter citation: 520 N.W.2d 855. Docket: 20180097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4348136 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted her MFS Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the \"Bullock\" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parties and ordered the account to be split through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶8] Prior to the marriage, Kelli owned a home, subject to a mortgage. The parties used the residence as their marital home during the majority of the marriage. Chad paid $21,500 during the marriage to satisfy the mortgage. Chad also testified that he paid for improvements to the home and contributed the labor to complete improvements to the home."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d jointly by Chad and his father. The district court included one- half of the value of a one-half interest in the property in the marital estate. [¶7] During the marriage, Chad was employed by the State of North Dakota and participated in the NDPERS retirement plan. All the contributions to the account were made during the marriage. Chad argued he should be allocated the entire NDPERS account, and Kelli should be allocated her MFS Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the \"Bullock\" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: S Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the \"Bullock\" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parties and ordered the account to be split through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶8] Prior to the marriage, Kelli owned a home, subject to a mortgage. The parties used the residence as their marital home during the majority of the marriage. Chad paid $21,500 during the marriage to satisfy the mortgage. Chad also testified that he paid for improvements to the home and contributed the labor to complete improvements to the home."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b23ca99-1560-413f-b139-d780e91c938c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4348136-4348136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4348136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180097","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 N.W.2d 855","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: erited the property prior to marriage, the property should be allocated to him without a reciprocal allocation of value to Kelli. Kelli requested an equal division of the farmland's value through post-judgment payments to her from Chad. The district court's property division allocated a reciprocal value to Kelli and ordered a series of post- judgment equalization payments from Chad to Kelli. The post-judgment payments included an interest rate of 4%. [¶4] The parties also disputed the valuation of the farmland. Chad and his father, Herbert Schultz, testified to their opinions on the value of each quarter. Kelli's values"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4351114 Extracted case name: GAIL REINKE v. WALTER SING. Extracted reporter citation: 179 A.3d 769. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4351114 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ely $49,000 and a Fidelity [401k] plan having a value of approximately $16,000; that it is equitable and appropriate that the [plaintiff] receive one half thereof, together with all interest and gains accrued to the date of actual distribu- tion by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . consistent with the intent of the parties to divide the marital assets equally.'' Additionally, the court found: ‘‘That the evidence supports a finding that the [defendant] has received state and federal income tax refunds for the years 2004 through 2007 in the amount of $104,163; that he failed to disclose this fact at the time of the entry of the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ome as $2061. . . . ‘‘As to the marital estate, while the differences are not as dramatic, nevertheless, they exist. A comparison to investment accounts shows an underreporting of $16,574 . . . or an 8.5 percent difference. The same comparison with regard to retirement accounts yields a more dramatic difference of $63,655 . . . or 62 per- cent. In addition, no life insurance was shown on the corrected financial affidavit, where $250,000 term insur- ance insuring the [defendant's] life was disclosed on the original financial affidavit, and less debt is reported on the corrected affidavit than on the original. Finally, the [defenda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): o the parties' marital assets, but claims that the court abused its dis- cretion in its distribution of five specific marital assets. Specifically, the plaintiff draws our attention to the court's orders concerning an ‘‘E-Trade account,'' tax refunds, a ‘‘UBM 401k'' account, a ‘‘Fidelity 401k'' account, and a ‘‘Morgan Stanley'' account. With respect to these five specific assets, the court found in relevant part, as follows: ‘‘That the original financial affidavit of the [defendant] as filed with the court omitted two retirement accounts, to wit: a UBM [401k] plan having a value of approximately $49,000 and a Fideli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e6b40ce-8811-49d9-ad7e-13e8f0871129","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4351114-4351114","title":"CourtListener opinion 4351114","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"179 A.3d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 0 and a Fidelity [401k] plan having a value of approximately $16,000; that it is equitable and appropriate that the [plaintiff] receive one half thereof, together with all interest and gains accrued to the date of actual distribu- tion by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . consistent with the intent of the parties to divide the marital assets equally.'' Additionally, the court found: ‘‘That the evidence supports a finding that the [defendant] has received state and federal income tax refunds for the years 2004 through 2007 in the amount of $104,163; that he failed to disclose this fact at the time of the entry of the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d3dbf9-80d5-42a5-9c41-1d64d833f7be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020","title":"CourtListener opinion 4353020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4353020 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4353020 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d3dbf9-80d5-42a5-9c41-1d64d833f7be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020","title":"CourtListener opinion 4353020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"82d3dbf9-80d5-42a5-9c41-1d64d833f7be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4353020-4353020","title":"CourtListener opinion 4353020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: pellant filed a complaint for legal separation on September 24, 2008. The parties had two children, both of whom were emancipated at the time of the divorce proceedings. Appellant's complaint sought temporary and permanent spousal No. 17AP-560 2 support, an equitable distribution of the marital assets, and an order that appellee share in the payment of all marital debts. On December 10, 2008, the trial court issued temporary orders. {¶ 3} On January 18, 2011, the parties entered into a decree of divorce. The decree required appellee to pay permanent spousal support to appellant in the amount of $6,500 per month, as well as 50 perce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4354988 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Gerleman. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4354988 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: decree and Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of Gerleman, No. 110,461, 2015 WL 1513967 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (Gerleman I). The parties settled the issues, however, and jointly dismissed their appeals. 3 Later, Jeannette filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Robert's military retirement pay. A different district court judge than the one who presided over the divorce heard arguments about what language to use in the QDRO. Based on the summary of division of property, the district court filed a QDRO dividing military retirement pay stating: \\Amount of Payments to Former Spouse. The Former spouse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: for divorce from Jeannette. In July 2013, the district court entered a divorce decree with an attached summary of division of property, which divided the parties' marital property in table format. In relevant part, it states: Item Husband Wife US Military Pension Divided at husband's retirement Divided at husband's retirement 5/9/13 (handwritten) based on military formula = # based on military formula = # years of marital service/total years of marital service/total months of military service months of military service TBD TBD Jeannette appealed the divorce decree and Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of G"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of Gerleman, No. 110,461, 2015 WL 1513967 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (Gerleman I). The parties settled the issues, however, and jointly dismissed their appeals. 3 Later, Jeannette filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Robert's military retirement pay. A different district court judge than the one who presided over the divorce heard arguments about what language to use in the QDRO. Based on the summary of division of property, the district court filed a QDRO dividing military retirement pay stating: \\Amount of Payments to Former Spouse. The Former spouse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e87a4c4-d604-45a9-834a-3a2abb7269b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4354988-4354988","title":"CourtListener opinion 4354988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ision of Robert's military retirement pay. We remanded for the district court to determine how it understood the parties agreed to divide his military retirement pay. Now, Robert argues the district court erred when it found the parties intended to divide the marital portion of Robert's military retirement pay equally. Robert 2 on remand for the first time also argued the decree was void. Finally, Robert argues the district court erred when it determined the amount of maintenance he had to pay was not modifiable. We find the law of the case doctrine precludes Robert's arguments regarding whether the decree is void and find"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4355161 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell and Howe. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4355161 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The executor and Betty filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal action. The executor argued that, under ERISA, the divorce decree constituted a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (QDRO) 1, such that the estate, rather than Betty, was the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of the 401(k) account. Alternatively, the executor argued that, even if the divorce decree was not a QDRO under ERISA, Betty could only receive the funds in the 401(k) account as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the estate. Betty's cross-motion argued that th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: xecutor), as executor of the estate of P. Kevin Cunningham (the decedent), filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant-appellant Betty Cunningham (Betty), seeking a declaratory judgment regarding funds from the decedent's 401(k) retirement account. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the executor and against Betty. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The decedent and Betty were married in 1981. During and after the marriage, the decedent was employed by Loparex LLC (Loparex)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IRA at Invesco and her 401(k) account ****. The Husband [the decedent] shall retain sole ownership of his IRA at Invesco and his 401(k) account at Fidelity. Each party warrants and represents that neither he nor she has any other interest in any other pension, IRA, 401(k) ESOP, or other retirement plan, except as may be specified above.\" ¶6 The divorce decree subsequently stated that: \"Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties hereto does hereby forever relinquish, release, waive, and quitclaim to the other party hereto all property rights and claims which he or she now has or may herea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8e415d7-d91e-48fa-bc84-f55a186f305e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4355161-4355161","title":"CourtListener opinion 4355161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: al court with respect to the 401(k) account. The executor filed an answer and counterclaim in the interpleader action, alleging that the estate was the proper beneficiary of the 401(k) plan under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In addition, the executor also asserted state law claims against Betty, alleging breach of the divorce decree and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of the estate. The funds from the 401(k) account were deposited with the clerk of the federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4359194 Extracted reporter citation: 546 U.S. 459. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4359194 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: z would pay Bogen, \"as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . .\" Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as alimony on their federal tax returns. In 2016, Schwartz contacted Bogen and told her he realized that, under the terms of the Agreement, he should hav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ntered in 1983, and provided, in relevant part, that if Bogen remarried after January 1, 1986, but in or before 1990, Schwartz would pay Bogen, \"as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . .\" Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: OTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Bruce Schwartz filed an action against Ardis Bogen, his ex-wife, alleging violations of the anti-alienation provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., that arose from payments he made to her for almost three decades. Bogen moved for dismissal on the ground of res judicata, and the district court1 dismissed the matter with prejudice. On appeal, Schwartz argues the district court erred in granting Bogen's motion. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2391072f-0dfd-4501-a48a-e51deb044b90","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4359194-4359194","title":"CourtListener opinion 4359194","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"546 U.S. 459","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y Bogen, \"as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . .\" Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as alimony on their federal tax returns. In 2016, Schwartz contacted Bogen and told her he realized that, under the terms of the Agreement, he should hav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4360568 Docket: because a QDRO for Taylor. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4360568 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: WESLEY TAYLOR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Lee A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Audrey M. Baytop, on briefs), pro se. (Theresa Rhinehart, on brief), for appellee. Audrey M. Baytop appeals an order denying and dismissing her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Baytop argues that the circuit court's judgment was erroneous and that she was entitled to a portion of Wesley Taylor's UPS Teamsters pension. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A:27. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2006, Baytop and Taylor entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA), which was incorporated into their final decree of divorce on November 6, 2006. The PSA includes the following provisions regarding the parties' retirement accounts: 13) RETIREMENT BENEFITS a) Mutual Waiver. Except as provided for herein, neither party shall have any interest whatsoever in any pension, profit-sharing, individual retirement account (IRA), 401(k) plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. account, deferred compensation account or other retirement plan o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ey M. Baytop appeals an order denying and dismissing her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Baytop argues that the circuit court's judgment was erroneous and that she was entitled to a portion of Wesley Taylor's UPS Teamsters pension. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2006, Baytop and Taylor entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA), which was incorporated into their final decree of divorce on N"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa92e452-b6fe-4f63-99e1-2ca850c60004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4360568-4360568","title":"CourtListener opinion 4360568","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"because a QDRO for Taylor","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): llowing provisions regarding the parties' retirement accounts: 13) RETIREMENT BENEFITS a) Mutual Waiver. Except as provided for herein, neither party shall have any interest whatsoever in any pension, profit-sharing, individual retirement account (IRA), 401(k) plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. account, deferred compensation account or other retirement plan or annuity of the other, including any right to a survivor annuity, and each expressly waives any and all such rights. .... c) Husband's Retirement Accounts. The parties acknowledge that Husband has a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4364134 Extracted reporter citation: 85 N.E.3d 1260. Docket: 28040 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4364134 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: for failing to comply with a provision of the divorce decree requiring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: m to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However, from our review of the record, we conclude that the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However, from our review of the record, we concl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c52ef5d-4eae-49aa-af86-ad01deaf4f2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364134-4364134","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364134","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28040 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"85 N.E.3d 1260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g to comply with a provision of the divorce decree requiring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4364621 Docket: COA18-600. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4364621 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e opinion. -9- No. COA18-600 – Ramsey v. Ramsey DILLON, Judge, dissenting. In this appeal, Appellant Gary P. Ramsey (\"Husband\") appeals from an order finding him in civil contempt for failing to immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as required by a consent judgment (\"Consent Judgment\") entered between him and his ex-wife Kalley Elizabeth Ramsey (\"Wife\"). I agree with the majority that Husband has committed a number of non-jurisdictional errors in his brief on appeal that may warrant sanctions. However, for the reasons stated below, I disagree with the majority that these errors"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husband's] NC 401(k) account. Counsel for [Husband] shall immediately draft [\"QDRO\"] to effectuate said roll-over to [Wife] as soon as possible. (Emphasis added). RAMSEY V. RAMSEY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d with the Consent Judgment before the Contempt Order was entered. I agree. 3 RAMSEY V. RAMSEY DILLON, J., dissenting. The trial court held Husband in civil contempt for \"failure to abide by the Judgment provision that he immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]\" The purge condition, though, did not require Husband to file a QDRO, as he had already done so. Rather, the trial court erroneously required Husband to pay Wife damages for lost interest as a purge condition. Civil contempt is proper where a party fails to comply with an order of the court and \"(1) [t]he order remains in force; (2) [t]he purpose o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e74096d5-636f-47fe-93db-f6c754d7eba3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4364621-4364621","title":"CourtListener opinion 4364621","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: refore, would reach the merits of Husband's arguments. Based on my review of Husband's arguments, I would affirm in part and reverse in part the order of civil contempt. I. Background In May 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4365295 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMBER BURINGTON AND CHRISTOPHER BURINGTON Upon the Petition of AMBER BURINGTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 18-0901. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4365295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ne $20,000 from Amber's 401(k) should be set aside to her in recognition of her premarital property. This leaves $80,222 as marital property in her 401(k). In order to equalize the accounts, the amount Chris should receive 10 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order is reduced to $11,899. We modify the decree to make this change. V. Life Insurance Policy Amber claims Chris should be required to maintain a life insurance policy on his life, naming the children as beneficiaries. She states this would ensure the needs of the children would be met in case Chris died. A provision in a dissolution decree requiring a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: stock car, valued at $3000, because it was obtained by trading in a motorcycle Chris owned before the marriage; (2) Chris's tools, except for tools worth $5000, which the court found he acquired during the marriage; and (3) an IRA valued at $1341. Amber's pension from the State of Minnesota, which accrued before she married Chris, was set aside to her. Not including the parties' retirement funds, the court awarded Chris assets worth $16,670 and Amber assets worth $16,164. The court found, however, Amber dissipated assets worth $23,000 by the gifts to her sister and parents, and it ordered Chris would receive one"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): We find the court did not improperly value the assets awarded to Chris and no offset needs to be made for the cash values of the parties' life insurance policies. The property division should be modified to set aside to Amber $20,000 from the value of her 401(k) account in recognition of her premarital assets. In order to equalize the parties' 401(k) accounts, Chris should receive $11,899 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court's decision denying Amber's request to require Chris to maintain a life insurance policy naming the children as beneficiaries. We d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cbddf73-3c8d-4102-a997-77429699c64a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4365295-4365295","title":"CourtListener opinion 4365295","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-0901","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: division should be modified to set aside to Amber $20,000 from the value of her 401(k) account in recognition of her premarital assets. In order to equalize the parties' 401(k) accounts, Chris should receive $11,899 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court's decision denying Amber's request to require Chris to maintain a life insurance policy naming the children as beneficiaries. We determine each party should pay his or her own appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Chris and Amber were married in 2008. They have two children, N.B., born in 2010, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f38791b1-8fa7-457c-a9bb-9a3b49dbe1a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4366580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4366580 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Borkowski. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 25 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4366580 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f38791b1-8fa7-457c-a9bb-9a3b49dbe1a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4366580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f38791b1-8fa7-457c-a9bb-9a3b49dbe1a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4366580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: deposed Wife on March 24, 2017, regarding marital and non-marital property. On September 6, 2017, Wife filed a notice of appeal from an August 28, 2017 order that enforced a June 14, 2017 order requiring Wife to sign a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"without . . . first having . . . a Master's Hearing . . . .\" Notice of Appeal, 9/6/17.3 Wife filed a Praecipe to Discontinue the Appeal on September 29, 2017, and this Court discontinued the appeal ____________________________________________ 1 Both parties engaged expert personal-property appraisers at the marital residence. Husband's appraisal was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f38791b1-8fa7-457c-a9bb-9a3b49dbe1a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4366580-4366580","title":"CourtListener opinion 4366580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"25 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s by the parties.2 Husband deposed Wife on March 24, 2017, regarding marital and non-marital property. On September 6, 2017, Wife filed a notice of appeal from an August 28, 2017 order that enforced a June 14, 2017 order requiring Wife to sign a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"without . . . first having . . . a Master's Hearing . . . .\" Notice of Appeal, 9/6/17.3 Wife filed a Praecipe to Discontinue the Appeal on September 29, 2017, and this Court discontinued the appeal ____________________________________________ 1 Both parties engaged expert personal-property appraisers at the marital residence. Husband's apprais"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4368882 Extracted reporter citation: 918 N.W.2d 1. Docket: A-18-360. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4368882 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: en Jonathon was home, Jonathon did not ask Clifford or his wife to care for Tegan. Clifford observed Jonathon to have a strong connection with Tegan and that he had been very conscious of Tegan's safety in the time that he has lived with Clifford. 3. DECREE, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER, AND EDITED PARENTING PLAN The district court entered a decree of dissolution on January 17, 2018. The court awarded Sarah sole legal and physical custody of Tegan, subject to Jonathon's parenting time. Jonathon was awarded parenting time on alternating weekends beginning on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. (or the conclusion of school or school activities, whiche"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: had a health savings account (HSA) through her employer-provided health insurance. Sarah's 2016 tax return showed that she received $3,346 in distributions from an HSA, which distributions she used to pay $3,346 in qualified medical expenses. Sarah also had a retirement account through the company that employed her throughout the marriage. The account had a balance of $3,319.24 on the day the parties married and a balance of $34,257.34 on the day they separated. Sarah generally asked the court to award her and Jonathon the marital property that was in their respective possessions at the time of trial. After she and Jonathon separ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n was home, Jonathon did not ask Clifford or his wife to care for Tegan. Clifford observed Jonathon to have a strong connection with Tegan and that he had been very conscious of Tegan's safety in the time that he has lived with Clifford. 3. DECREE, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER, AND EDITED PARENTING PLAN The district court entered a decree of dissolution on January 17, 2018. The court awarded Sarah sole legal and physical custody of Tegan, subject to Jonathon's parenting time. Jonathon was awarded parenting time on alternating weekends beginning on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. (or the conclusion of school or school activities, whiche"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa376609-1dc0-4e6a-aff0-a41b7097dad3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368882-4368882","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368882","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-360","extracted_reporter_citation":"918 N.W.2d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ssification and division of marital property. As discussed below, after a de novo review of the record, we find the court's classification and division of marital property was not an abuse of discretion. Under Nebraska's divorce statutes, \"[t]he purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.\" Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016). Equitable division of property is a three-step process: (1) classify the parties' property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage; (2) value the marital assets and marita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4368907 Extracted case name: QUIJADA v. QUIJADA. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4368907 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ge Kenton D. Jones delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Julie Quijada (Wife) appeals from the family court's order denying her request for immediate payment of retirement benefits allocated to her in the decree of dissolution of her marriage to Michael Quijada (Husband), relying primarily upon Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986). Although Koelsch provides guidance on how to equitably divide retirement benefits at dissolution, it does not authorize a post-judgment alteration to the spouses' agreed-upon distribution. Additionally"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ts discretion, we affirm the order denying fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 In September 2009, the parties' eleven-year marriage was dissolved via consent decree.2 In the decree, the parties agreed to divide the community-property portion of Husband's pension with the Arizona 1 Although this rule was numbered 85(C) at the time of these proceedings, the text of the rule remained unchanged with the 2019 amendments. For ease of reference, we cite the current version of the rules. 2 We view the evidence \"in the light most favorable to supporting the decision below.\" Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85, 90, ¶ 20 (App."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dgment alteration to the spouses' agreed-upon distribution. Additionally, where the non- employee-spouse agrees that the community-property portion of retirement benefits will be paid upon distribution to the employee-spouse in a consent decree and stipulated domestic relations order (DRO), the employee-spouse's decision to work past initial retirement eligibility does not justify relief from the agreement under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(b)(6).1 We therefore affirm the order denying Wife's request. ¶2 Husband cross-appeals the order denying his request for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"559e6389-f6f9-4855-bf2f-fa3341eb4bb3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4368907-4368907","title":"CourtListener opinion 4368907","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0118","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ess findings.'\") (quoting Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., 129 Ariz. 137, 139 (App. 1981)). ¶9 Wife relies upon Koelsch to argue relief from the decree is justified. In Koelsch, our supreme court considered \"how and when a non- employee[-]spouse's community property interest in an employee[- ]spouse's matured retirement benefit plan is to be paid when the employee wants to continue working, thus delaying receipt of the retirement benefits.\" 148 Ariz. at 180. While it is true that Koelsch largely disapproved of an arrangement that would grant the employee-spouse sole discretion to determine when the non-employee-spouse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4369010 Extracted reporter citation: 4 A.3d 654. Docket: 1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369010 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed to 55 percent of the TD Bank mutual fund account. Contrary to Wife's assertion, the master clearly set forth his intent in the master's report as follows: There are a series of qualified assets which are marital in nature. These shall be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)]. It is -7- J. S66034/18 noted that Husband has post-separation retirement accounts. Utilizing the appropriate factors of the Divorce Code, the undersigned makes a specific finding that Wife is entitled to a disproportionate share of the marital qualified assets, namely, the Charles Schwab IRA Rollover as well as the St. Jude Medical Inc."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion. Wife raises the following issues for our review: [1.] Did the Master err in allocating the TD Bank mutual fund accounts of [Husband] solely to him as \"non–qualified assets\" rather than taking them into account as \"qualified assets\" since they are retirement accounts of [Husband] which represented marital property? [2.] Did the Master err in his recommendation that the martial [sic] value of all of the Bank of America accounts with the exception of the Bank of America account ending in the numbers 6759 be allocated to [Husband]? [3.] Did the Master err in his calculation of the martial [sic] estate which did"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): k Rendezvous—in Husband's name which Wife drives—$2,522.00. 12. 2008 Honda Accord—in Husband's name— $7,244.00 QUALIFIED ASSETS 13. Charles Schwab-IRA Rollover x3842—in Husband's name—$286,981.00 14. St[.] Jude Medical Inc. Retirement Savings Plan 401K—in Husband's name—$3,469,00. -4- J. S66034/18 LIABILITIES 1. Husband has credit card debt at Chase in the amount of $3,058.00. 2. Husband has credit card debt at Bank of America in the amount of $1,357.00. 3. Husband has a 2013 IRS debt in his name alone in the amount of $12,000.00. Master's report, 12/23/16 at 1-6. The trial court set fort"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98c5efc6-fff6-45d6-a5ef-a402f01bc3a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369010-4369010","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369010","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"4 A.3d 654","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ercent of the TD Bank mutual fund account. Contrary to Wife's assertion, the master clearly set forth his intent in the master's report as follows: There are a series of qualified assets which are marital in nature. These shall be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)]. It is -7- J. S66034/18 noted that Husband has post-separation retirement accounts. Utilizing the appropriate factors of the Divorce Code, the undersigned makes a specific finding that Wife is entitled to a disproportionate share of the marital qualified assets, namely, the Charles Schwab IRA Rollover as well as the St. Jude Medical Inc."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4369252 Extracted reporter citation: 732 N.E.2d 1278. Docket: 18A-DR-1375 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s divided as follows: [John] is awarded $28,006.55 of this account as his sole and separate property. [Nancy] is awarded $175,000.00 of this account as her sole and separate property. Counsel for [John] shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).[ 1] Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 27. 2 John's attorney prepared the QDRO for the Plan (the Original QDRO), which was approved and signed by the trial court, but did not specify therein that the valuation date was April 24, 2012 (the date 1 A QDRO has been characterized as any order made pursuant to a state domestic relations law which \"create"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y (Lind) Mullen, The Honorable Brant J. Parry, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-1205-DR-493 Altice, Judge. Case Summary [1] John Lind appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Nancy (Lind) Mullen to enforce an award of retirement benefits in the amount of $56,626.58. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-1375 | February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 8 John presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as: Did the trial court err in entering judgment in favor of Nancy? [2] We affirm. Facts & Procedural History [3] The parties' thirty-year marriage was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: but did not specify therein that the valuation date was April 24, 2012 (the date 1 A QDRO has been characterized as any order made pursuant to a state domestic relations law which \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternative payee's right\" to pension benefits. Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1280 n.3 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ablamis v. Roper, 937 F.2d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir. 1991)). 2 In total, there were three retirement/pension plans that were divided as part of the marital estate. The other two plans were divided on a percentage basis with each party receiving fifty percent. Court of Appeals o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7f3a874c-6269-4218-b16d-1108a96c3595","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369252-4369252","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-1375 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"732 N.E.2d 1278","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: to receive her award of $175,000 plus an amount equal to the gains and losses attributable to that amount from April 24, 2012 to November 7, 2013. The Amended QDRO, like the Original QDRO, also provided: 15. Reimbursement. If benefits assigned to the Alternate Payee [i.e., Nancy] under this Order are wrongfully or mistakenly paid by the Plan to the Participant [i.e., John], the Participant shall promptly reimburse the Alternate Payee for such benefits by paying directly to the Alternate Payee an amount equal to the benefits wrongfully or mistakenly received, including gains and losses.[ 6] Appellant's Appendix"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4369364 Extracted reporter citation: 459 N.E.2d 896. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369364 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ere she worked as a bus driver and custodian. She draws $1,075.91 per month on her SERS pension. The trial court, referencing the date of the parties' marriage, ruled as follows on the subject of their public pensions: The parties shall divide equally by QDRO/DOPO, the marital portion of [Appellant] Husband's and [Appellee] Wife's pensions using the 1982 date. If possible, Wife's pension shall be offset against Husband's pension and then an equal division. {¶27} Judgment Entry of Divorce at 6-7. {¶28} Based on the first sentence of the above provision, it appears the trial court in this case initially"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 975. In performing this Stark County, Case Nos. 2018 CA 00052 and 2018 CA 00054 7 function, the trial court has broad discretion to develop some measure of value. See Berish v. Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 432 N.E.2d 183. {¶25} Generally, pension or retirement benefits earned during the marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the just division of property. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 178, 559 N.E.2d 1292. Specifically, \"[w]hen considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension or retirement benefits in a divorce, the trial court must apply its discretion based upon the circumsta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o appellee for attorney fees and costs. Id. at 8. {¶7} On May 9, 2018, Appellant Gary filed a notice of appeal (2018CA00052). He herein raises the following two Assignments of Error: {¶8} \"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EQUALLY DIVIDING [APPELLANT] GARY'S PENSION. {¶9} \"II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING GARY TO PAY [APPELLEE] PATRICIA'S ATTORNEY'S FEES.\" {¶10} Appellee Patricia also filed a notice of appeal on May 9, 2018 (2018CA00054). On July 11, 2018, this Court issued an order consolidating the two appeals, and designating appellee as the cross-appellant. She herein raises the following four Assignme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b1c150f0-a818-4abc-baa6-a9ff8ec76411","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369364-4369364","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369364","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"459 N.E.2d 896","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nd shall pay to Wife one half of the value of the items. Cost of the lock smith and appraiser shall be divided equally. {¶18} Judgment Entry of Divorce at 7-8. {¶19} While the aforesaid provision presumably hampered an exact accounting on the court's property division chart attached to the decree, we note R.C. 3105.171(J) states that a court addressing marital and/or separate property \"may issue any orders under this section that it determines equitable ***.\" Furthermore, on appellate review, the trial court's property division should be viewed as a whole in determining whether it has achieved an equitable and fair d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4714182d-a960-4b80-8f37-ff8c70b13ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equal to the number of months Frank served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4369502 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: equal to the number of months Frank served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369502 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4714182d-a960-4b80-8f37-ff8c70b13ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equal to the number of months Frank served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4714182d-a960-4b80-8f37-ff8c70b13ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equal to the number of months Frank served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . At issue during the dissolution proceedings was whether Frank's 48 months of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement System Pension (pension), was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4714182d-a960-4b80-8f37-ff8c70b13ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equal to the number of months Frank served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hat were available to teachers with at least 20 years of service by making two one-time payments to the TRS of $7397.46 and $6390.60. Id. at 754-55. Following the husband's retirement later that year, the wife filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QULDRO) to divide the husband's pension. Id. at 755. The Massac County circuit court found that the husband's nonmarital monetary contributions could not be severed from the rest of his pension, and thus, it included the portion of the pension attributable to the early retirement incentives purchased by the husband as part of the marital pension. I"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4714182d-a960-4b80-8f37-ff8c70b13ffc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4369502-4369502","title":"CourtListener opinion 4369502","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equal to the number of months Frank served","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ve military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement System Pension (pension), was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial court's ruling. ¶2 Louise appeals, asserting the trial court's judgment is reversible"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae5c523-86d1-4907-b110-02c561136c52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371359","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4371359 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4371359 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae5c523-86d1-4907-b110-02c561136c52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371359","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ae5c523-86d1-4907-b110-02c561136c52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371359-4371359","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371359","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: this timely application for interlocutory appeal. It appears that the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding – what used to be called \"deprivation\" under the old juvenile code. See OCGA § 15-11-2 (22). Although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency or deprivation finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are direc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4371589 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340589 Midland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4371589 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 401k and IRA's in any manner they can agree to so long as the aggregate is 50-50, plus or minus any appreciation or depreciation. [Emphasis added.] When the judgment of divorce was entered, the parties understood that a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") was necessary to divide the retirement plans. However, during the following year, a QDRO was not prepared, and in the meantime, both parties' IRAs declined significantly in value, while plaintiff's 401(k) appreciated significantly in value. On August 2, 2016, defendant filed a motion to enforce the judgment, alleging, in relevant part, that plaintiff ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: L M. BELGIORNO, LC No. 14-001271-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from an opinion and order requiring him to pay $106,900 to defendant in satisfaction of the retirement benefits provision in the parties' July 23, 2015 judgment of divorce. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 24, 2000 and have two minor children. Plaintiff is a stockbroker and financial advisor employed by Wells Fargo. He earned the required financial advisor certifications during the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he parties agreed to a 50-50 division of the three retirement plans. Eventually, a judgment of divorce was entered on July 23, 2015. Pertinent to this appeal, the judgment included the following provision regarding division of the parties' retirement plans: PENSION AND/OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that except as otherwise provided for in this Judgment of Divorce, each party shall hold as their sole and separate property, free and clear of any claim of the other, any and all right, title and interest in any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; or any accumulated contributions in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c0eee81-5c16-473c-aea6-ed210254bcce","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4371589-4371589","title":"CourtListener opinion 4371589","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"340589 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rtifications during the marriage while defendant worked to support the family. Defendant is employed by Mercury Network, a telecommunications sales firm. At the time of the filing of the complaint for divorce on February 11, 2014, plaintiff had an IRA and a 401(k), and defendant had an IRA. Plaintiff managed all three retirement accounts. The parties agreed to a 50-50 division of the three retirement plans. Eventually, a judgment of divorce was entered on July 23, 2015. Pertinent to this appeal, the judgment included the following provision regarding division of the parties' retirement plans: PENSION AND/OR RETIREM"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4374013 Extracted case name: IN RE ESTATE OF MILFORD CLEO TODD Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County No. Extracted reporter citation: 445 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4374013 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e implies that Claimant would -5- have no interest in any future benefits accruing as a consequence of Decedent's death or after his death. We also find significant the Divorce Decree's instruction that \"[t]his portion of the judgment is intended to be a ‘Qualified Domestic Relations Order.'\" A qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" Jordan v. Jordan, 147 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (footnote omitted) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (1999)). To become \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court impermissibly modified the Divorce Decree because the original order did not expressly include cost-of-living allowances. Id. at 160–61. We disagreed, finding that the usual, natural, and ordinary meaning of \"retirement benefits,\" as used in the original order, included all \"amounts to which the retiree would ordinarily be entitled as a result of retirement.\" Id. at 162 (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Tenn. 2001)). 2 Neither party presented evidence to prove the amount of Decedent's net monthly benefit at the time of the divorce. -7- We find no material dist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ORD CLEO TODD Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County No. 3190 Carma Dennis McGee, Chancellor ___________________________________ No. W2018-01088-COA-R3-CV In this case, the decedent's ex-wife filed a claim against his estate to collect unpaid pension benefits awarded to her in their divorce. She asserted that the decedent failed to pay her a pro rata share of his cost-of-living allowances and \"supplemental\" benefit. The executrix for the decedent's estate filed an exception to the claim, asserting that the divorce decree expressly provided that the ex-wife would \"have no claim against the estate of [the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11590dcd-f691-4932-829a-b91cfc4ebbad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4374013-4374013","title":"CourtListener opinion 4374013","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"445 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Divorce Decree, which states, \"[T]o ensure [Claimant]'s 30% of [Decedent]'s T.V.A. Financed Pension[,] a judicial lien is hereby placed upon [Decedent]'s T.V.A. Financed Pension not to exceed 30%.\" Although this provision is arguably unenforceable in light of ERISA's anti-alienation provision, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) (\"Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.\"), it implies an intention to provide Claimant with a remedy to collect her interest without regard to Decedent's death. We also find unpersuasive Executrix's argument that the trial court's inte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4377317 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 343123 Ingham Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4377317 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal support. Defendant retained the full amount of his own 401k. In November 2014, the trial court entered a QDRO for plaintiff's 401k account that awarded defendant, as alternate payee, 50% of plaintiff's account balance, and an additional $10,000 payment. Two years later, in November 2016"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: issue and was controlling. Because the JOD did not expressly exclude any components of plaintiff's pension, \"based upon MCL 552.101(4),[2] . . . both parties in this matter [were] entitled to a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits awarded to them in the\" JOD. The trial court further stated, \"It is unclear if the fact that the Defendant is in active retirement status impacts the Plaintiff's ability to share in those components of Defendant's pension.\" Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and for entry of a domestic relations order (DRO) following the trial court's ruling. Plaintiff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS The parties divorced in 2014 pursuant to a consent judgment of divorce (JOD). The JOD included a property settlement, which provided that plaintiff was awarded one-half of defendant's pension, and defendant was awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal suppo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02c4647b-ab5f-4d2c-b4ae-65174c5e3d5f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4377317-4377317","title":"CourtListener opinion 4377317","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343123 Ingham Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): was awarded one-half of defendant's pension, and defendant was awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal support. Defendant retained the full amount of his own 401k. In November 2014, the trial court entered a QDRO for plaintiff's 401k account that awarded defendant, as alternate payee, 50% of plaintiff's account balance, and an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4378280 Docket: COA18-600. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4378280 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pinion. - 12 - No. COA18-600 – Ramsey v. Ramsey DILLON, Judge, dissenting. In this appeal, Appellant Gary P. Ramsey (\"Husband\") appeals from an order finding him in civil contempt for failing to immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as required by a consent judgment (\"Consent Judgment\") entered between him and his ex-wife Kalley Elizabeth Ramsey (\"Wife\"). I agree with the majority that Husband has committed a number of non-jurisdictional errors in his brief on appeal that may warrant sanctions. However, for the reasons stated below, I disagree with the majority that these errors"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husband's] NC 401(k) account. Counsel for [Husband] shall immediately draft [\"QDRO\"] to effectuate said roll-over to [Wife] as soon as possible. (Emphasis added). RAMSEY V. RAMSEY"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d with the Consent Judgment before the Contempt Order was entered. I agree. 3 RAMSEY V. RAMSEY DILLON, J., dissenting. The trial court held Husband in civil contempt for \"failure to abide by the Judgment provision that he immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]\" The purge condition, though, did not require Husband to file a QDRO, as he had already done so. Rather, the trial court erroneously required Husband to pay Wife damages for lost interest as a purge condition. Civil contempt is proper where a party fails to comply with an order of the court and \"(1) [t]he order remains in force; (2) [t]he purpose o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63a920d2-9ad5-48ad-bd38-e2771c0f396e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378280-4378280","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378280","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA18-600","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: refore, would reach the merits of Husband's arguments. Based on my review of Husband's arguments, I would affirm in part and reverse in part the order of civil contempt. I. Background In May 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4378492 Extracted case name: COA GARY L. HALL APPELLANT v. CAROLYN J. HALL APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4378492 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ease in Gary's projected retirement income over the parties' ten-year marriage. ¶6. In accordance with the memorandum opinion referenced above, the judgment was entered on June 23, 2006. Neither party appealed. On August 20, 2007, the parties agreed to a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" which included the above-mentioned award of payment to Carolyn from Gary's retirement plan. ¶7. As of December 31, 2007, Standex International Corporation, the parent company of 2 Masterbilt, Gary's employer, froze his pension benefits.1 Although Gary had notice of this change, he did not attempt to modify the $600 award to Carolyn. Several years la"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: randum opinion referenced above, the judgment was entered on June 23, 2006. Neither party appealed. On August 20, 2007, the parties agreed to a \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" which included the above-mentioned award of payment to Carolyn from Gary's retirement plan. ¶7. As of December 31, 2007, Standex International Corporation, the parent company of 2 Masterbilt, Gary's employer, froze his pension benefits.1 Although Gary had notice of this change, he did not attempt to modify the $600 award to Carolyn. Several years later, in November 2016, Gary accepted an early retirement offer from Masterbilt causing him to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: m opinion, which granted Carolyn a divorce on the ground of adultery, awarded her $1,500 per month for periodic alimony, and divided the parties' marital property. The marital property included Gary's 401(k) plan, Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and Standex pension-plan. The court ruled that Carolyn was entitled to a lump-sum payment of $23,976.23 from Gary's 401(k) plan, a lump-sum payment of $2,976.13 from Gary's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and $600 per month of Gary's Standex pension-plan if he retired at the normal age. At the time of the marriage in 1995, Gary's pension-plan benefit was projected to be $4,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d69308b-8836-44dd-b2c1-edd9d7f3153a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4378492-4378492","title":"CourtListener opinion 4378492","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . On May 16, 2006, the chancery court issued a memorandum opinion, which granted Carolyn a divorce on the ground of adultery, awarded her $1,500 per month for periodic alimony, and divided the parties' marital property. The marital property included Gary's 401(k) plan, Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and Standex pension-plan. The court ruled that Carolyn was entitled to a lump-sum payment of $23,976.23 from Gary's 401(k) plan, a lump-sum payment of $2,976.13 from Gary's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and $600 per month of Gary's Standex pension-plan if he retired at the normal age. At the time of the marriage in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4380650 Extracted case name: CHRISTY KELLER ELROD CHURCH v. DARRELL GENE ELROD. Extracted reporter citation: 90 S.W.3d 566. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4380650 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ver, that Wife shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the then balance of the profit sharing plan in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, and in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered segregating Wife's fifty (50%) percent of the retirement account into a separate account in her name, with Husband being required thereafter to make equal contributions to Wife's separate retirement account as he makes his own retirement account or accounts through his employer or any subsequent employer until he reaches the age of six"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y of civil contempt for failure to make payments into Appellee's retirement account under the terms of the parties' Agreed Order of Legal Separation (AOLS). However, the trial court refused to relieve Appellant of his obligation to continue funding Appellee's retirement account at the same level as he funds his own retirement account. We conclude from our review that the life insurance policy obligation constitutes spousal support, which is subject to modification. We vacate the trial court's judgment concerning college tuition and hold that Appellant is obligated to pay the cost of tuition and books, less scholarships and sponsor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Wife shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the then balance of the profit sharing plan in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, and in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered segregating Wife's fifty (50%) percent of the retirement account into a separate account in her name, with Husband being required thereafter to make equal contributions to Wife's separate retirement account as he makes his own retirement account or accounts through his employer or any subsequent employer until he reaches the age of six"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac55af9-df59-4a62-9c7b-30febe2e1691","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380650-4380650","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380650","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"90 S.W.3d 566","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ned that the plain language of the AOLS does not mention \"support.\" This is true. Likewise, the terms \"property division\" and \"property settlement\" are not mentioned in the AOLS. The AOLS does not refer to the life insurance obligation as part of the parties' property division or division of marital assets. In fact, other than the agreed order, there is no separate written property settlement agreement between the parties in this case. As such, from the language in the AOLS, we cannot conclude that the life insurance obligation was intended to be part of a property settlement as opposed to support to secure Mr. Elrod's various fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4380715 Extracted case name: RSWL-DFM v. BHASKAR VYAS. Extracted reporter citation: 530 U.S. 211. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4380715 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Vyas is not \"a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary\" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not \"perform[] a fiduciary function\" when it took \"the action[s] subject to complaint.\" Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ted March 8, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Sujata Vyas appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Defendants Bhaskar Vyas and Schwab Retirement Plan * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ignation. Services, Inc. (\"Schwab\"). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. Vyas does not have standing to sue her ex-husband for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Vyas is not \"a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary\" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4797fe0c-0cde-46ef-98d6-07c92f8b787f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4380715-4380715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4380715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"530 U.S. 211","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"). Vyas is not \"a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary\" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not \"perform[] a fiduciary function\" when it took \"the action[s] subject to complaint.\" Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a73804a2-6efd-412a-af2e-69594e6c0019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979","title":"CourtListener opinion 4381979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-5575 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"39 F. Supp. 3d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4381979 Extracted case name: L.P. v. EQT. Extracted reporter citation: 39 F. Supp. 3d 877. Docket: 18-5575 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4381979 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a73804a2-6efd-412a-af2e-69594e6c0019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979","title":"CourtListener opinion 4381979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-5575 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"39 F. Supp. 3d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a73804a2-6efd-412a-af2e-69594e6c0019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979","title":"CourtListener opinion 4381979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-5575 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"39 F. Supp. 3d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e exercise of complex legal decision-making or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. See id. (\"Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, and motions to vacate, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law.\") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the district court noted, many attorneys, let alone the average layperson, would not know the answer to the question: \"Would a reasonably competent attorney, who is asked to provide an oil and gas title opinion, breach the standard of care by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a73804a2-6efd-412a-af2e-69594e6c0019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4381979-4381979","title":"CourtListener opinion 4381979","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-5575 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"39 F. Supp. 3d 877","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of complex legal decision-making or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. See id. (\"Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, and motions to vacate, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law.\") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the district court noted, many attorneys, let alone the average layperson, would not know the answer to the question: \"Would a reasonably competent attorney, who is asked to provide an oil and gas title opinion, breach the standard of care by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4382481 Extracted reporter citation: 306 P.3d 1282. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382481 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: his share of the HELOC assigned to -3- 7347 Gambini. The court also noted its decision not to address Gambini's discovery motion prior to trial, declaring the motion now moot. In December 2017 Hamilton filed a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to govern the transfer of the portion of his 401(k) owed to Gambini. Gambini filed her appeal in January 2018, and Hamilton filed a notice of non- participation later that month. During the pendency of Gambini's appeal, she and Hamilton engaged in litigation over the QDRO. III. DISCUSSION On appeal Gambini argues that the superior court improperly classif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ni argues that she is entitled to more than half of the marital estate and that the superior court erroneously treated a loan she made to Hamilton prior to their marriage as a marital obligation. She also contends that the court incorrectly valued Hamilton's retirement account and that several of its procedural decisions unfairly prejudiced her or violated her rights. None of Gambini's claims amounts to reversible error. We therefore affirm the superior court's property division order. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Sometime in 2006 Gambini and Hamilton rekindled a relationship from decades prior. Hamilton was married to someone else"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: not prejudiced by the court's decision to leave her discovery motion pending at the time of trial and then dismiss it as moot. The arguments 28 Gambini also claims that the loans on Hamilton's 401(k) should be added to its value. But taking out a loan on a pension account does not increase that pension account's value by the amount of loan. 29 \"We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.\" Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657, 671 (Alaska 2002). 30 Nelson v. Jones, 787 P.2d 1031, 1034 (Alaska 1990) (explaining that it is not necessary \"to require tort actions b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a33d913-0c80-485c-9e63-c20b52705262","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382481-4382481","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382481","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"306 P.3d 1282","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ve. Eventually the couple sold the Kim Drive property to Gambini's son. They used the proceeds from the sale to purchase two lots adjoining the Kim Drive property — -2- 7347 the Barbi Drive lots — and to develop them for a residence. A loan on Hamilton's 401(k) also partially financed the purchase of the Barbi Drive lots. Gambini and Hamilton contracted with Selway Corporation to finance the construction of a residence on the Barbi lots. The couple conveyed the lots to Selway, which used the property as security for a loan to finance construction of the residence; the couple would purchase the residence from Selw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4382607 Docket: of assignments of error including the family. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: with a stipulated value of $88,965.00.\" Further, the final divorce order awarded the savings account solely to Mr. Lamm. Approximately nine years after the circuit court's final order was entered, Ms. Lamm filed an amended qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") with the family court, seeking a portion of Mr. Lamm's savings account. Protracted litigation followed in which Ms. Lamm submitted multiple QDROs to the family court regarding the savings account and the retirement plan. On July 12, 2017, the family court entered a QDRO that awarded Ms. Lamm 34.78% of Mr. Lamm's retirement plan. By order entered on Octobe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ondent Patricia Lamm (\"Ms. Lamm\") and Petitioner David Lamm (\"Mr. Lamm\") were divorced by final order entered by the family court in 2005 and affirmed by the circuit court in 2007. This appeal concerns a \"Savings and Investment Plan\" (\"savings account\") and a retirement plan that were addressed in the family court's 2005 final divorce order. The final divorce order provided that the \"parties shall divide equally [Mr. Lamm's] retirement plan with a stipulated value of $88,965.00.\" Further, the final divorce order awarded the savings account solely to Mr. Lamm. Approximately nine years after the circuit court's final order was en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eri- Reach,\" and 4) valuation of certain stock options. 3 counsel for Ms. Lamm prepared a QDRO for an account that was awarded solely to Mr. Lamm. The second QDRO, also prepared by counsel for Ms. Lamm and dated December 3, 2007, was for Mr. Lamm's \"Dupont Pension and Retirement Plan.\" This QDRO named Ms. Lamm as the \"alternate payee\" and stated that she was entitled to 50% of Mr. Lamm's retirement plan as of August 30, 2002. The family court entered the \"Dupont Pension and Retirement Plan\" QDRO on February 15, 2008 (\"2008 retirement plan QDRO\"). Following entry of the 2008 retirement plan QDRO, no activity occurred"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8ae74f9-efc8-4b9f-95d8-14405f3cb11b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382607-4382607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of assignments of error including the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: oved from the active docket of the Court.\" After the circuit court's order was entered, counsel for Ms. Lamm prepared two QDROs. The first QDRO, dated December 3, 2007, was for Mr. Lamm's \"Dupont Savings and Investment Plan.\" This QDRO named Ms. Lamm as the \"alternate payee\" and stated that she was entitled to 50% of Mr. Lamm's savings and investment plan as of December 31, 2004. This QDRO was not signed by the family court judge, nor was it entered. We note that the family court's final order, which was affirmed by the circuit court, did not award Ms. Lamm any portion of the savings account. Thus, it is unclear why 2 Ms. L"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4382671 Extracted reporter citation: 527 S.W.3d 299. Docket: 13-17-00217-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382671 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). of appellee Kathleen M. Vela. 2 By two issues, that we construe as three, Jesus contends that the trial court did not correct a clerical error, the final divorce decree is unambiguous, and the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") is void. 3 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2010, the divorce court 4 rendered and signed a final divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Kathleen and Jesus. Kathleen's divorce attorney signed the final divorce decree approved as to form only, while Kathleen and Jesus signed it, approving and consenting to both form and substance. On the same d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . P. 41.3. 3 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the trial court that renders a final divorce decree \"to render an enforceable [QDRO] . . . permitting payment of,\" among other things, a retirement plan to an alternate payee). 4 For ease of reading, we refer to the \"divorce court\" when discussing the proceedings concerning the divorce decree, and we refer to the \"trial court\" when discussing the nunc pro tunc proceedings. 2 Kathleen 35% of Jesus's military retirement benefits, although all parties and the divorce court also signed the QDRO. 5 The t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the trial court that renders a final divorce decree \"to render an enforceable [QDRO] . . . permitting payment of,\" among other things, a retirement plan to an alternate payee). 4 For ease of reading, we refer to the \"divorce court\" when discussing the proceedings concerning the divorce decree, and we refer to the \"trial court\" when discussing the nunc pro tunc proceedings. 2 Kathleen 35% of Jesus's military retirement benefits, although all parties and the divorce court also signed the QDRO. 5 The trial court held a hear"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24821b9a-6845-4e53-809c-566a7485aab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4382671-4382671","title":"CourtListener opinion 4382671","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-17-00217-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"527 S.W.3d 299","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ANN. § 74.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). of appellee Kathleen M. Vela. 2 By two issues, that we construe as three, Jesus contends that the trial court did not correct a clerical error, the final divorce decree is unambiguous, and the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") is void. 3 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2010, the divorce court 4 rendered and signed a final divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Kathleen and Jesus. Kathleen's divorce attorney signed the final divorce decree approved as to form only, while Kathleen and Jesus signed it, approving and consenting to both form and substance. On the same d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4386876 Extracted reporter citation: 397 S.W.3d 162. Docket: Entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386876 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-2919-FC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eva Ramirez appeals from the trial court's order granting Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the trial court's related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed on the same day.1 Eva argues that the mistakes in the parties' agreed final decree of divorce (the decree), if any, were judicial errors and, thus, could not be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. For the following reasons, we affirm the challenged orders. Background Eddie filed a petition for divorce in September 2016. The parties e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s in the decree: IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that the husband, is awarded the following as his sole and separate property, and the wife is divested of all right, title, interest, and claim in and to that property: . . . . A portion of Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s retirement benefits in State Farm 401(k) arising out of Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s employment with State Farm as of September 30, 2016, that portion being $32,040.50, together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): orneys signed the ISA and filed it with the trial 1 Because the parties have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. court in October 2016. Relevant to this appeal, the ISA included the following agreement as to the division of Eddie's 401(k) from State Farm Insurance (the 401(k)): Wife is awarded . . . a portion of the Husband's 401k from State Farm Insurance that portion being $32,040.50 as of the date of this agreement, September 30, 2016. A QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] will be submitted to the Court for entry to effect the division of the Husband's 401k. Husband is awarde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb33ce76-14ba-495b-92b1-5cf06ad55842","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386876-4386876","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Entry","extracted_reporter_citation":"397 S.W.3d 162","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-2919-FC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eva Ramirez appeals from the trial court's order granting Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the trial court's related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed on the same day.1 Eva argues that the mistakes in the parties' agreed final decree of divorce (the decree), if any, were judicial errors and, thus, could not be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. For the following reasons, we affirm the challenged orders. Background Eddie filed a petition for divorce in September 2016. The parties e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4386956 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386956 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ber 1, 2017. Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court's judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that rea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that reads: [Griffith's] interest in the Plan shall be adjusted for investment earnings and losses allocable thereto in accordance with the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that reads: [Griffith's] interest in the Plan shall be adjusted for investment earnings and losses allocable thereto in accordance with the terms of the Plan thereafter. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96106e1c-3289-49e7-9fe7-2e2daef7ae12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386956-4386956","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386956","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 7. Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court's judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that rea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4386957 Extracted reporter citation: 347 S.W.3d 345. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386957 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: decree dissolving his marriage to Kathye Marlene Griffith and dividing their marital property. Jonjak asserts the decree divides Jonjak's retirement account contrary to the terms of the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). Jonjak also challenges a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) implementing that division. We will modify the decree and the QDRO and affirm as modified. BACKGROUND Jonjak filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the parties signed an MSA dividing most of their marital property. In relevant part, the MSA states Griffith \"will receive $962,000 from the Bo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: D-1-FM-15-003489, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eric Jonjak appeals from a divorce decree dissolving his marriage to Kathye Marlene Griffith and dividing their marital property. Jonjak asserts the decree divides Jonjak's retirement account contrary to the terms of the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). Jonjak also challenges a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) implementing that division. We will modify the decree and the QDRO and affirm as modified. BACKGROUND Jonjak filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the parties signed an MSA dividing most of their marital property. In relevant part, the MSA states Griffith \"will receive $962,000 from the Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k, which is 53% of the value of the account as represented by [Jonjak] on the day of the mediation via QDRO prepared by [Jonjak].\" The following day, the parties appeared before a district court and announced the agreement. The district court pronounced the divorce and instructed Jonjak to prepare a decree consistent with the MSA. Approximately six mont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50908246-f4b2-4101-9ec7-b92958d88fb7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4386957-4386957","title":"CourtListener opinion 4386957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"347 S.W.3d 345","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e MSA divided the 401k on the date of the mediation or when the court signed a QDRO implementing the division. See Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353–54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (\"The purpose of a QDRO is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan.\"). The district court ruled that Griffith \"gets $962,000 as of June 1st, 2017, which is the date of the—the date of the mediation.\" The district court then signed Griffith's proposed decree and QDRO after stri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4387812 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Docket: 18-30942. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4387812 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: NES, Circuit Judges. HAYNES, Circuit Judge: This case is a dispute between decedent Gerald Miletello's ex-wife Sandra and widow Pam about who is entitled to the funds in Gerald's 401(k) retirement account. The dispute hinges on the existence and timing of a \"qualified domestic relations order,\" or QDRO, which is controlled by federal law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, concluding that she had timely received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of the 401(k) balance. Case: 18-30942 Document: 00514917969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r the Western District of Louisiana Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. HAYNES, Circuit Judge: This case is a dispute between decedent Gerald Miletello's ex-wife Sandra and widow Pam about who is entitled to the funds in Gerald's 401(k) retirement account. The dispute hinges on the existence and timing of a \"qualified domestic relations order,\" or QDRO, which is controlled by federal law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, concluding that she had timely received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ause it post-dates Gerald's death. She relies on Rivers v. Central & South West Corp., 186 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1999), in support of her argument. Rivers had very different facts from those here. There, a husband and wife were married while the husband earned a pension at a company. Id. at 682. They divorced more than a decade before he retired. Id. Their divorce settlement did not address his pension. Id. He remarried while still earning a pension. Id. He retired, received payments under the pension, and died years later. Id. His ex-wife requested a QDRO a decade after he died. Id. We affirmed summary judgment against he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e839dfa-53ed-4ec6-95c7-3147885b2761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4387812-4387812","title":"CourtListener opinion 4387812","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-30942","extracted_reporter_citation":"520 U.S. 833","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ly received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of the 401(k) balance. Case: 18-30942 Document: 00514917969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 No. 18-30942 I. Background A. The ERISA Regulatory Scheme The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") is a comprehensive federal statute that regulates employee benefit plans. Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 841 (1997). It covers defined contribution plans like 401(k) accounts. See LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 250 (2008). ERISA generally prohibits the a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0af748b7-bd1d-44dc-89cc-7335f9a84c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389543","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"516 U.S. 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4389543 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Greenlee. Extracted reporter citation: 516 U.S. 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4389543 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0af748b7-bd1d-44dc-89cc-7335f9a84c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389543","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"516 U.S. 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0af748b7-bd1d-44dc-89cc-7335f9a84c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389543","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"516 U.S. 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e of the withdrawal. The court ruled that Jordan owed Whitted $55,000, \"minus taxes and penalties\" and plus interest required by statute. The court ordered Whitted to provide a bank account, or if necessary, to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) within 20 days, so that Jordan could transfer any and all funds remaining in the retirement account. If Jordan transferred less than the amount owed, the court ordered Jordan to pay Whitted $1,000 per month until the entire debt was satisfied. Here, the court declined to reduce the principal judgment amount based on estimated taxes and penalties. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0af748b7-bd1d-44dc-89cc-7335f9a84c8c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389543-4389543","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389543","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"516 U.S. 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: for approximately $165,000 in unpaid child support. In the second proceeding that is the subject of this appeal, the court entered judgment against Lori Jordan for a principal sum of $55,000—enforcing a provision of the decree that required her to transfer retirement account funds to Whitted. The court allowed Jordan to offset the amount she owed to Whitted against the larger amount Whitted owed to her. Both parties appeal, challenging the offset, the calculation and rate of interest on the principal judgment amount, and the allocation of responsibility for any penalties or taxes stemming from the withdrawal of retirement f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4517aadc-aad1-45da-9161-ce92ac1a1986","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389581","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4389581 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 432. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4389581 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4517aadc-aad1-45da-9161-ce92ac1a1986","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389581","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4517aadc-aad1-45da-9161-ce92ac1a1986","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389581","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4517aadc-aad1-45da-9161-ce92ac1a1986","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4389581-4389581","title":"CourtListener opinion 4389581","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hat it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1d5a8f7-6e70-4b23-9f4f-13488b7b1fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-18-00076-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4391215 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 06-18-00076-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4391215 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1d5a8f7-6e70-4b23-9f4f-13488b7b1fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-18-00076-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d1d5a8f7-6e70-4b23-9f4f-13488b7b1fee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391215-4391215","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391215","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-18-00076-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: satisfactory response was not filed by April 16, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Carolyn's response cites to authority stating that a trial court retains continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce or clarify a divorce decree or amend a qualified domestic relations order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.002 (West Supp. 2018), §§ 9.008, 9.1045 (West 2006). 1 The trial court did so in its August 2017 order, and no further requests for clarification were sought by the parties. Because it entered the same order in 2018, the order was not a clarification of either the divorce decree or the 2017 order based on a motion by the part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4391256 Extracted reporter citation: 11 N.E.3d 1119. Docket: H-18-006 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4391256 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marital and premarital portions of the \"retirement-related interests\" ensued. {¶ 4} Following a voluntary dismissal without prejudice due to a tentative agreement between the parties, Mrs. Bursley renewed her motion on May 23, 2017, along with a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared by QDRO Consultants because the tentative agreement broke down. The QDRO divided equally the total balance of the disputed account identified as \"PIM USA 401(k) TTEE for Gary 2. Bursley\" and created during the marriage. A hearing on Mrs. Bursley's motion was held before a magistrate on September 26, 2017, and the hearing transcript is i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ty objected to the magistrate's recommendation, nor appealed the trial court's order. {¶ 3} Then on September 24, 2015, Mrs. Bursley filed a \"Motion to Reopen Divorce and Enforce Decree\" arguing that Mr. Bursley was withholding her marital portion of his retirement benefits due to a dispute with a third-party consultant that \"pursuant to the records in place with the plan provider there is no premarital interest and the entire account is subject to division.\" Mrs. Bursley acknowledged \"at some point and time there may have been a premarital component to the account\" but the premarital component \"is not discernable today.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ontracts are generally construed against the drafter. Rohlman v. Rohlman, 2018-Ohio-1543, 110 N.E.3d 1006, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). {¶ 19} We first look to the parties' separation agreement for the relevant clauses. Article 4(C), entitled, \"Division of Property: Pension and/or Retirement Plan,\" states: Husband has a pension and/or retirement plan through his place of employment. All amounts in husband's 401(k) earned prior to the date of 9. marriage are the sole property of husband per the Antenuptial Agreement of the parties. Any amounts paid into the Uni-K plan, including any gains therefrom, from the date of m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"045a56a1-f87c-4ac6-999f-d6f98222a2c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4391256-4391256","title":"CourtListener opinion 4391256","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H-18-006 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"11 N.E.3d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d her motion on May 23, 2017, along with a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared by QDRO Consultants because the tentative agreement broke down. The QDRO divided equally the total balance of the disputed account identified as \"PIM USA 401(k) TTEE for Gary 2. Bursley\" and created during the marriage. A hearing on Mrs. Bursley's motion was held before a magistrate on September 26, 2017, and the hearing transcript is in the record. The magistrate entered in the record his decision determining that Mr. Bursley failed to show by a preponderance of competent, credible evidence that any portion o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4392209 Extracted reporter citation: 80 A.3d 464. Docket: 724 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4392209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 4-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") with Appellee Michael Conway (\"Husband\"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: J-A05001-19 2019 PA Super 138 MICHAEL CONWAY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JULIE CONWAY : : Appellant : : v. : : CITY OF ERIE POLICE RELIEF AND : PENSION ASSOCIATION : : Appellee No. 724 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order May 8, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at No(s): 13394-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the parties is to be ascertained from the express language of the agreement itself. Bianchi v. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511, 515 (Pa.Super. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A QDRO is an order \"which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a -7- J-A05001-19 participant under [a pension] plan. To be ‘qualified,' the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits.\" Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 85 n.3, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (2007) (emphasis added). In cases where parties have enter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f90c29f8-8aca-4b0c-9c96-bf7e16188bec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392209-4392209","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392209","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: FORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") with Appellee Michael Conway (\"Husband\"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4392796 Extracted reporter citation: 80 A.3d 464. Docket: 724 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4392796 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 4-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") with Appellee Michael Conway (\"Husband\"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: J-A05001-19 2019 PA Super 138 MICHAEL CONWAY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JULIE CONWAY : : Appellant : : v. : : CITY OF ERIE POLICE RELIEF AND : PENSION ASSOCIATION : : Appellee No. 724 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order May 8, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at No(s): 13394-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the parties is to be ascertained from the express language of the agreement itself. Bianchi v. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511, 515 (Pa.Super. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A QDRO is an order \"which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a -7- J-A05001-19 participant under [a pension] plan. To be ‘qualified,' the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits.\" Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 85 n.3, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (2007) (emphasis added). In cases where parties have enter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c32cabef-a58f-4b34-8d7b-e367a74717b9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4392796-4392796","title":"CourtListener opinion 4392796","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"724 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"80 A.3d 464","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: FORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") with Appellee Michael Conway (\"Husband\"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43f3ab38-ae28-4347-9c10-28543c6982c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836","title":"CourtListener opinion 4393836","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4393836 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4393836 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43f3ab38-ae28-4347-9c10-28543c6982c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836","title":"CourtListener opinion 4393836","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43f3ab38-ae28-4347-9c10-28543c6982c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4393836-4393836","title":"CourtListener opinion 4393836","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: filed his petition, Ms. Dowell informed him that she was moving out of her apartment in Naples, but she did not specify that she was moving out of Naples to Tampa. Ms. Dowell was served with the paternity petition and the trial court's Standing Temporary Domestic Relations Order at her address in Naples on June 30, 2018. The standing order included the following directive: \\Neither party will remove"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed4b827c-178a-4f37-a3ea-d50c8b93e5ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395731","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28171 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4395731 Extracted case name: L.B. v. T.B. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 28171 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4395731 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed4b827c-178a-4f37-a3ea-d50c8b93e5ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395731","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28171 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed4b827c-178a-4f37-a3ea-d50c8b93e5ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395731","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28171 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The entry had been signed by the trial judge and Dawn's attorney, and by counsel for Robert \"Per email authorization.\" {¶ 10} On October 27, 2016, Dawn's attorney filed a \"Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" which assigned certain of Robert's retirement benefits to Dawn; specifically, it assigned Dawn \"100% of the vested portion of [Robert's] account balance under the Plan\" as of August 3, 2016. The order was signed by Dawn's attorney and the trial judge; above the signature line for Robert's attorney was the statement \"Seen but not approved.\" {¶ 11} On January 6, 2017, Robert voluntarily dismissed the objec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ed4b827c-178a-4f37-a3ea-d50c8b93e5ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395731-4395731","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395731","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28171 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and future spousal support arrearage and ongoing obligation.\" The entry had been signed by the trial judge and Dawn's attorney, and by counsel for Robert \"Per email authorization.\" {¶ 10} On October 27, 2016, Dawn's attorney filed a \"Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order,\" which assigned certain of Robert's retirement benefits to Dawn; specifically, it assigned Dawn \"100% of the vested portion of [Robert's] account balance under the Plan\" as of August 3, 2016. The order was signed by Dawn's attorney and the trial judge; above the signature line for Robert's attorney was the statement \"Seen but not approved.\" {¶ 11} On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4395830 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Porterfield. Extracted reporter citation: 54 A.3d 525. Docket: 2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4395830 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: C, White River Junction, for Defendant-Appellee. PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund and Robinson, JJ., and Teachout, Supr. J. and Howard, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned ¶ 1. SKOGLUND, J. This case asks us to examine that strange procedural device, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and how it intersects with the statute of limitations for actions on judgments. The parties divorced in November 2004. As part of the divorce, the court ordered wife to transfer funds from her retirement account to husband. In 2006, the court approved a proposed QDRO to effectuate the transfer of said funds. The order was never \"qualified,\" howe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ocedural device, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and how it intersects with the statute of limitations for actions on judgments. The parties divorced in November 2004. As part of the divorce, the court ordered wife to transfer funds from her retirement account to husband. In 2006, the court approved a proposed QDRO to effectuate the transfer of said funds. The order was never \"qualified,\" however, because there was no money in the retirement account that wife identified. The court approved another proposed QDRO in February 2007 specifying a different retirement account identified by wife. In August 2017, husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ess is that the DRO cannot reach a result inconsistent with the underlying substantive order.\" Id. ¶ 6. \"In short,\" Turner explains: when dividing retirement benefits, the law of equitable distribution is not playing on its home field. Because of ERISA, pension issues are litigated in material part upon the home field of the plan administrator. . . . Because the plan administrator is not required to play by normal state court rules, normal state court procedures must be adapted to the unique setting of DROs under ERISA. Id. ¶ 7. With this overview in mind, we turn to the facts. The parties here divorced in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1ee0dd0-5a2f-477c-ac6d-cc2640470d5e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4395830-4395830","title":"CourtListener opinion 4395830","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"54 A.3d 525","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: and remand. ¶ 2. We begin with an overview of the relevant law governing the division of retirement accounts. A court must engage in a two-step process to divide retirement accounts governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. It first \"enters a substantive order which equitably divides and assigns the parties' property.\" Breslin v. Synnott, 2012 VT 57, ¶ 6, 192 Vt. 79, 54 A.3d 525. It then enters a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) \"directing the [retirement] plan administrator to make certain specified payments to the ex-spouse.\" Id. (citations omitte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4396240 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Hoffman. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 324 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4396240 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat arise thereafter, as well. Husband, through his counsel, shall be responsible for drafting any Qualified Domestic Relations Order that is necessary to facilitate said transfer. Wife shall cooperate in signing said Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")] within ten (10) days of demand. Id. at 8-9. Finally, the PSA provided that it was binding and remained in full force and effect until terminated under the terms of the PSA, that it would be incorporated in, but not merged with, \"any Divorce Decree which may be granted by a court of competent jurisdiction,\" and that it inured to the benefit of thei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: oventry Township Police Department, and Wife worked as an account manager at Brown Printing Company. Husband's employment entitled him to a defined benefit pension to which he made no personal J-S61017-18 contributions, while Wife participated in a 401(k) retirement plan through her employer as well as a profit sharing plan. When Husband retired from his position as police chief in 2010, he elected a joint annuity benefits option through the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System (\"PMRS\"). Under this option, Husband received a lesser monthly payment than he would have received on a single-life annuity based solely"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: record. Husband and Wife married in 1989. Husband was employed as a police officer with the North Coventry Township Police Department, and Wife worked as an account manager at Brown Printing Company. Husband's employment entitled him to a defined benefit pension to which he made no personal J-S61017-18 contributions, while Wife participated in a 401(k) retirement plan through her employer as well as a profit sharing plan. When Husband retired from his position as police chief in 2010, he elected a joint annuity benefits option through the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System (\"PMRS\"). Under this option,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbb0dbda-616d-4942-820d-983375a47133","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4396240-4396240","title":"CourtListener opinion 4396240","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"324 EDA 2017","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ed. A QDRO \"is a domestic relations order that creates, recognizes, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a pension plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).\" Wilder, Pa. Family Law Prac. and Proc. (5th ed.), at § 23-4 (footnote omitted). ____________________________________________ force after such time as a final decree in divorce may be entered.'\" N.T. Trial, 2/8/16, at 91 (purporting to quote PSA, 6/18/12, at 2). However, the agreement actually states that it shall continue to be in force after the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4398526 Docket: I The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4398526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, ¶ 18. \"[T]he divorce decree is a final, appealable order and actually divides the property,\" whereas a QDRO or DOPO \"is merely a tool used to execute the divorce decree.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 19; Taylor v. Taylor, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17 AP-763, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 7. Moreover, \"[a] QDRO does not in any way constitute further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, -21- Case No. 1-18-50 as its sole purpose is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 's separation agreement, which was incorporated into the parties' divorce decree, contains the following provisions: STUDENT LOANS The Wife shall assume and pay and hold the Husband harmless from liability as to the student loan debt owed to Navient. RETIREMENT ACCOUNT/ DOPO The parties agree that the Wife is a participant in the Public Employees Retirement System through her place of employment. The -7- Case No. 1-18-50 parties further agree that the Wife's current value for her OPERS Account is valued at $231,542.28. The parties further agree that the Husband's Retirement Account is valued at $22,811.41, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: execute the divorce decree.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 19; Taylor v. Taylor, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17 AP-763, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 7. Moreover, \"[a] QDRO does not in any way constitute further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, -21- Case No. 1-18-50 as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Therefore, it is the decree of divorce that constitutes the final determination of the court and determines the merits of the case.\" Wilson at 16. Thus, the denial of the implementation of a DOPO does not alter the provision of a divorce decree and th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ee727dd-b48c-4d36-97b6-9c0635450f50","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4398526-4398526","title":"CourtListener opinion 4398526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"I The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): favor of the Husband in order to perfect the Agreement and intent of the parties. * * * The Husband shall have as his separate property, free and clear of any claims of Wife, all interest in retirement benefits, profit sharing and stock ownership, and 401(k) plans incidental to his employment with Tower Automotive. The Wife shall have as her separate property, free and clear of any claims of the Husband, all interest in the State of Ohio Deferred Compensation Plan. *** (Doc. No. 20). {¶13} As the overall equitable division of property was to be carried out by a PLOP paid to Jon from Valerie's OPER"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4399326 Docket: 28863 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4399326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eal, Wife argues that Husband had the ability to pay the $185,758 property-division award in a lump-sum payment with his 401k. She also argues that, even if obtaining insurance was too expensive, the solution should have been for the trial court to issue a QDRO requiring Husband to transfer his 401k to her. Wife further argues that, given the offset (i.e., the fact that she had not made spousal-support payments and Husband had not made payments toward the property-division award), she has effectively paid spousal-support and, regardless, spousal-support payments are irrelevant to the issue of security or intere"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tanding, she argues, rather than ordering no interest, the equitable solution would have been for the trial court to order Husband to pay interest beginning when her spousal-support obligation began. {¶10} The record reflects that Husband lives off of his pension and social-security income. At the time of the June 2017 hearing, Husband's income was approximately $50,000, his 401k was valued at approximately $132,000, and he had around $23,000 in his checking account. Given the trial court's broad discretion and Wife's argument on appeal, we cannot say that Wife has established that the trial court abused its dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): at, given the cost of insurance premiums, it would be inequitable to require Husband to secure the property-division award. {¶9} On appeal, Wife argues that Husband had the ability to pay the $185,758 property-division award in a lump-sum payment with his 401k. She also argues that, even if obtaining insurance was too expensive, the solution should have been for the trial court to issue a QDRO requiring Husband to transfer his 401k to her. Wife further argues that, given the offset (i.e., the fact that she had not made spousal-support payments and Husband had not made payments toward the property-division awa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a74d7283-11c2-4f6c-be96-ad1ff642cb32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399326-4399326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28863 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ay Wife spousal support. {¶5} Now, in the parties' sixth appeal, Wife challenges the trial court's decision, raising four assignments of error for our review. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF [WIFE] BY FASHIONING A PROPERTY DIVISION THAT IS INEQUITABLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT [HUSBAND] HAS TEN YEARS TO PAY [WIFE] AND NO INTEREST OR SECURITY IS PROVIDED. {¶6} In her first assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Husband to pay the property-division award over ten years, without any interest or security, as opposed to a lump-sum payment."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4399327 Extracted reporter citation: 925 So.2d 977. Docket: 29091 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4399327 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: incorporated a separation agreement, provided that Ms. Archer was entitled to one-half of Mr. Dunton's pension through the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund as of the date of divorce. It further provided that \"[s]hould Ohio law be amended so as to allow a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar Order, on state-administered pension plans, then said Order shall be filed on Husband's pension plan.\" The decree required thirty days' notice to Ms. Archer if Mr. Dunton elected to receive a lump sum instead of periodic pension payments and determined both the present value of the pension and Ms. Archer's one- half share as of the date of d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of Mr. Dunton's pension during his participation in DROP. This Court agrees. {¶7} In divorce cases, a trial court must designate marital and separate property and divide the property equitably between spouses. R.C. 3105.171(B). \"Marital property\" includes retirement benefits acquired by either spouse during the marriage. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(i). See also Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 178-179 (1990). A qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution\" by assigning to an alternate payee-spouse the right to receive benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Division. This Court reverses. I. {¶2} Deborah Archer and Steven Dunton divorced in 1993 after eighteen years of marriage. Their divorce decree, which incorporated a separation agreement, provided that Ms. Archer was entitled to one-half of Mr. Dunton's pension through the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund as of the date of divorce. It further provided that \"[s]hould Ohio law be amended so as to allow a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar Order, on state-administered pension plans, then said Order shall be filed on Husband's pension plan.\" The decree required thirty days' notice to Ms. Archer if Mr."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5356e362-9087-4575-a51a-c196ada30836","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4399327-4399327","title":"CourtListener opinion 4399327","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29091 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"925 So.2d 977","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: determined both the present value of the pension and Ms. Archer's one- half share as of the date of divorce for that purpose. 2 {¶3} In 2003, the trial court issued a Division of Property Order (\"DOPO\") that set forth the amount payable to Ms. Archer as alternate payee from Mr. Dunton's monthly pension benefit or, in the alternative, the amount that would be distributed to her if Mr. Dunton elected a lump-sum distribution upon retirement. Mr. Dunton, however, elected to participate in a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (\"DROP\") instead of receiving his pension benefits.1 As a result of his decision, the monthly pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4400896 Extracted reporter citation: 743 A.2d 518. Docket: 2492 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4400896 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hin claims raised in the 1925(b) statement. We will analyze the appeal based on Wife's claims of error in her 1925(b) statement, which are more clearly stated. -4- J-A07043-19 5. The Court erred in entering a final divorce order without first entering a QDRO (COAP). 6. The Court erred in failing to account for a cost of living increase on Husband's CSRS pension that was awarded for 2018. 7. The Court erred in failing to find that Wife had received and maintained $30,000 as her separate property. Wife's 1925(b) Statement, 7/26/18, at 1-2 (reordered for ease of review).2 In reviewing a challenge to the t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: RS pension due to his thirty-three years of service with USPS. The trial court also recognized that Wife has substantial separate property to which Husband has no claim. Further, the trial court recognized the inequity in the fact that the Husband's CSRS retirement benefits are considered marital property subject to division, while Wife's Social Security benefits are exempt from equitable distribution. This Court has provided: Social Security benefits are not subject to equitable distribution. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609–10, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1371–72, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (\"To engraft upon the Social Security s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: _________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A07043-19 worked for Harleysville Insurance until January 2014. Husband now works part-time for the Bucks County Justice Center, making $14,155/year in gross income. Husband receives a pension from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) of $3,444/month based on his USPS employment; Husband was not covered by Social Security as a CSRS employee. Husband also receives $1,144/month in Social Security from employment after his USPS retirement. Wife receives $1,222/month from Social Security and makes approximately $10,000/year in income as a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"247b356d-3410-4188-96c8-d69024095c7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4400896-4400896","title":"CourtListener opinion 4400896","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2492 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"743 A.2d 518","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: der of equitable distribution states that Husband's pension shall be distributed through a COAP and directs the parties to retain Matthew Morley, Esq. to prepare the COAP. Our Supreme Court has provided that a QDRO \"creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan.\" Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 85, 938 A.2d 246, 248 (2007) (citation omitted). For the QDRO to be \"qualified,\" it must include \"certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits\"; however, \"[t]he actual qualifying of the domestic relatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4407309 Extracted case name: HECTOR L. CASABLANCA v. ANOLAN CASABLANCA. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4407309 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ich sought to preclude the defendant from presenting parol evidence in support of her motion to open the judgment. The court subsequently denied the defendant's motion to open, granted the plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered the defendant to sign the qualified domestic relations order. On the defendant's appeal to this court, held that the trial court errone- ously determined that the retirement asset provision of the parties' agreement was unambiguous, as the language of the provision was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation: in light of the language in the provision, there was more than one possible approach to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: take, and on the basis of equitable principles. She claimed that the relevant part of the retirement asset provision that required the amount of her anticipated future social security benefit to be subtracted from the amount of her share of the plaintiff's pension benefit was entered upon mutual mistake, and provided an inequitable and unconscionable windfall to the plaintiff. At a hearing on the parties' motions, the trial court granted a motion in limine filed by the plaintiff, which sought to preclude the defendant from presenting parol evidence in support of her motion to open the judgment. The court subsequ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: defendant via a qualified domestic relations order, 50 percent of the value of the marital portion of his benefit in a certain retirement fund, minus the amount of the defendant's social security benefit. After the plaintiff submitted a proposed qualified domestic relations order to the defendant, the defendant refused to sign it, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which sought a court order requiring the defendant to execute the proposed qualified domestic relations order. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to open the dissolution judgment on the grounds of mutual mistake and unilateral mistake, and on the basis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77d12c94-7737-4eb5-96e3-a8cc09b0f930","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4407309-4407309","title":"CourtListener opinion 4407309","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ated into the dissolution judgment the terms of an agreement between the parties, which included a retirement asset provision that required the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant via a qualified domestic relations order, 50 percent of the value of the marital portion of his benefit in a certain retirement fund, minus the amount of the defendant's social security benefit. After the plaintiff submitted a proposed qualified domestic relations order to the defendant, the defendant refused to sign it, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which sought a court order requiring the defendant to execute the proposed q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4409505 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 935 N.E.2d 152. Docket: 18A-DN-1693 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4409505 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ate. The only evidence in the record concerning the annuity is its value. Also, in her proposed division of the marital estate, Wife requested that the trial court award the annuity to Husband. 5 A trial court may not divide PERF pension accounts by way of qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") or otherwise order a party to assign benefit payments to a former spouse. See Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210, 213–214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-10.3-8-9(a) the husband's PERF account was exempt from levy, sale, garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, including a QDRO, but this did not leav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sset. But since Husband's 2 Husband was 54.56 years old on the date of valuation and will not qualify to receive his full pension benefit under the Rule of 85 until he is 56.1 years old. Tr. pp. 69, 73. 3 A spouse's \"present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits\" constitutes property that belongs in the marital pot, as does a vested \"pension or retirement benefit[ ] . . . payable after the dissolution of marriage.\" See I.C. § 31-9-2-98(b)(1), (2). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DN-1693 | June 24, 2019 Page 3 of 9 pension rights are vested, the pension is a marital asset . . . According"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t Jill Creech, The Honorable J. Richard Appellee-Respondent. Campbell, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D04-1710-DN-9239 Mathias, Judge. [1] In this dissolution proceeding, Marvin Creech (\"Husband\") appeals the Hamilton Superior Court's valuation of his pension and the order to make a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DN-1693 | June 24, 2019 Page 1 of 9 lump sum equalization payment to Jill Creech (\"Wife\"). Concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] The parties' nearly thirty-five-year marriage was dissolved on June 18, 2018,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1832e100-f510-4409-9155-9209444363ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4409505-4409505","title":"CourtListener opinion 4409505","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DN-1693 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 N.E.2d 152","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nly evidence in the record concerning the annuity is its value. Also, in her proposed division of the marital estate, Wife requested that the trial court award the annuity to Husband. 5 A trial court may not divide PERF pension accounts by way of qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") or otherwise order a party to assign benefit payments to a former spouse. See Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210, 213–214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-10.3-8-9(a) the husband's PERF account was exempt from levy, sale, garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, including a QDRO, but this did not leav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4410159 Docket: 343904 Alpena Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410159 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ualize the division of real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, Wayne would pay Sandra $154,618.47 in \"Non Retirement Assets.\" Similarly, to equalize the division of retirement assets, Sandra would provide Wayne with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for $101,204.03 from her retirement assets. Despite their agreement to the above, the parties disputed the method for completing the equalizing payments. Sandra proposed that the $154,618.47 owed to her be paid in full and in 1 For ease of reference, we will refer to the parties by their first names. -1- cash. However, Wayne submitted that he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Sandra would owe him only $1,204.03 from her retirement assets. Sandra challenged Wayne's proposal, arguing that as a result of tax consequences the $100,000 offset was not equal to $100,000 paid to her in cash because once she withdrew the $100,000 from her retirement accounts she would have to pay taxes and, if she withdrew the funds early, she would also incur a penalty for early withdrawal. In lieu of a trial and hearing, the parties submitted briefs to the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of Wayne's distribution proposal, concluding that it would not consider the tax consequences of the distribution. In doing so"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: division of real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, Wayne would pay Sandra $154,618.47 in \"Non Retirement Assets.\" Similarly, to equalize the division of retirement assets, Sandra would provide Wayne with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for $101,204.03 from her retirement assets. Despite their agreement to the above, the parties disputed the method for completing the equalizing payments. Sandra proposed that the $154,618.47 owed to her be paid in full and in 1 For ease of reference, we will refer to the parties by their first names. -1- cash. However, Wayne submitted that he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1d5a8d-114b-4582-bb1d-cdfd861fc216","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410159-4410159","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410159","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"343904 Alpena Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n to more accurately and equitably divide the present value of the estate.\" Sandra moved for reconsideration, asserting in an affidavit that she intended to immediately withdraw the retirement funds. The court denied the motion, and this appeal follows. II. PROPERTY DIVISION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Sandra argues that the trial court erred by declining to consider the possible tax consequences arising from the selected distribution method. The trial court's factual findings on the marital property's division are reviewed for clear error. Hodge v Parks, 303 Mich App 552, 554; 844 NW2d 189 (2014). Clear error occurs \"when this C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4410182 Docket: 28799 29104 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410182 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT MICHAEL TUSTIN ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Appellant COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2011-07-2007 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 26, 2019 TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Michael K. Tustin appeals the qualified domestic relations orders issued by the trial court on September 1, 2017, and the entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion for relief from judgment. We affirm. I. {¶2} In 2011, Julia Tustin, nka Julia Hoffman, filed a complaint for divorce from Michael Tustin. After a 2013 trial, a decree of divorce was entered, follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: able division of marital property. After again proceeding to trial, the trial court issued a decree of divorce on April 8, 2016. {¶3} The decree of divorce, in providing for the division of marital property, ordered that the parties' defined contribution retirement plans were to be divided equally, with Ms. 2 Hoffman to transfer to Mr. Tustin the amount of $103,436.62 in order to equalize the value of the accounts. The decree also provided that the parties were to each retain a motor vehicle, with Ms. Hoffman owing Mr. Tustin $2,040.00 to equalize the values. The trial court further found that Mr. Tustin owed Ms. Hoff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e expenses, attorney fees, taxes, and insurance, and in offsetting that amount against the $2,040.00 owed to Mr. Tustin, granted judgment against Mr. Tustin in the amount of $5,661.25, plus statutory interest. The decree further provided that Ms. Hoffman's pension plan was to be divided equally by a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). {¶4} Initially the parties submitted QDROs based upon the de facto marriage termination date of December 31, 2011, but were informed by QDRO Consultants that FirstEnergy Corp. was unable to calculate gains or losses on any participant accounts for periods prior to January"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6a89ac8-5021-4f56-abca-b82326387a8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410182-4410182","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410182","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28799 29104 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): n regarding the equitable division of marital property. After again proceeding to trial, the trial court issued a decree of divorce on April 8, 2016. {¶3} The decree of divorce, in providing for the division of marital property, ordered that the parties' defined contribution retirement plans were to be divided equally, with Ms. 2 Hoffman to transfer to Mr. Tustin the amount of $103,436.62 in order to equalize the value of the accounts. The decree also provided that the parties were to each retain a motor vehicle, with Ms. Hoffman owing Mr. Tustin $2,040.00 to equalize the values. The trial court further found that Mr. Tust"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4410259 Extracted case name: ZEYNAB ABDULLAHI v. GIANNI ZANINI. Extracted reporter citation: 968 S.W.2d 26. Docket: 124133-FL REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410259 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nefit that Husband would get would be a spousal benefit, not based on his own record of work, and therefore, it was inapplicable to this situation. 14 [T]he World Bank is not subject to the normal rules of QDROs[15] because it's not under the – the normal QDRO rules under U.S. law do not apply to the World Bank so the World Bank has their own set of rules and they have what's called a spousal support order. So you have to follow the spousal support order if you want to effectuate what we would refer to as a QDRO. The World Bank required the division of retirement benefits be granted as spousal support. D."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tended two sessions, and he then returned to his travels. After Husband returned from his travels at the end of 3 Wife testified that, because of the move, she took one year off of work without pay, and she lost benefits, including her contribution to her retirement accounts. During this year in Italy, Husband's income was the family's sole source of income. 3 October 2013, Wife found Viagra, Cialis, and other \"performance enhancers\" in Husband's luggage. At the end of 2013, Wife was told by her doctors that she needed surgery. Husband was traveling at the beginning of 2014 when Wife was initially scheduled to have the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Zeynab Abdullahi v. Gianni Zanini, No. 2390, September Term, 2017. ACQUIESCENCE RULE; MONETARY AWARD; DISSIPATION; CONTRIBUTION; MARITAL SHARE OF A PENSION The general rule is that a party may not acquiesce in a judgment and accept its benefits while attacking the judgment on appeal. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. One exception exists where the judgment is \"‘for less than the amount or short of the right claimed.'\" Additionally, where Husband told Wife that he would not raise the acquie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd62f0e9-7998-42dd-84be-e23eb2f17dc5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4410259-4410259","title":"CourtListener opinion 4410259","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"124133-FL REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"968 S.W.2d 26","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a pension plan's participant under the respective pension plan.\" Robinette v. Hunsecker, 212 Md. App. 76, 81 n.2 (2013), aff'd, 439 Md. 243 (2014). 15 World Bank is non-ERISA. It is not subject to the federal ERISA legislation but they have historically honored domestic relations orders. Not Q[D]ROs but domestic relations orders as long as they designate the payment as spousal support. That's just a unique feature of a World Bank pension plan in terms of what they will recognize. As long as it is designated as spousal supp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87e21c0e-2e5d-41a1-9712-4b1beeafd4c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250","title":"CourtListener opinion 4411250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4411250 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 432. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4411250 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87e21c0e-2e5d-41a1-9712-4b1beeafd4c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250","title":"CourtListener opinion 4411250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87e21c0e-2e5d-41a1-9712-4b1beeafd4c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250","title":"CourtListener opinion 4411250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87e21c0e-2e5d-41a1-9712-4b1beeafd4c0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4411250-4411250","title":"CourtListener opinion 4411250","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"741 P.2d 432","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hat it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12438740-fc76-464b-bcb6-fb8c83d07aa9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994","title":"CourtListener opinion 4412994","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2697 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4412994 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2697 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4412994 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12438740-fc76-464b-bcb6-fb8c83d07aa9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994","title":"CourtListener opinion 4412994","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2697 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12438740-fc76-464b-bcb6-fb8c83d07aa9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994","title":"CourtListener opinion 4412994","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2697 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: intiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. 1 We quash the appeal. We glean the following case history from the record. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on March 24, 2017. Plaintiff alleged therein that a portion of his monthly pension benefits from his employer MACK/UAW had been paid to Elaine Vetoviyz, his former spouse, pursuant to a qualified ____________________________________________ 1Also before us is an application to withdraw filed by Plaintiff's counsel, Donald P. Russo, Esquire, in which he indicates that on April 25, 2019, our Supreme Court suspended him from practicing la"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12438740-fc76-464b-bcb6-fb8c83d07aa9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4412994-4412994","title":"CourtListener opinion 4412994","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2697 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l briefing was concluded in this appeal prior to the suspension, we deem it appropriate to proceed with resolution of the appeal. Our prothonotary shall assure that Mr. Aversa is personally served with this and any future filings in this matter. J-S06003-19 domestic relations order, and that Defendant, \"a large human relations consulting firm,\" wrongfully failed to pay Plaintiff the full amount of his pension benefits for approximately two years after Ms. Vetovitz died. Complaint, 3/24/17, at ¶¶ 6-12. Plaintiff indicated that the damages sought pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law (\"WPCL\") were \"within the limits set fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4413045 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rockwell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 79065-0-1112 Although the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4413045 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and PENNY LEE ANTHONY, ) Respondent. ) FILED: July 1, 2019 SCHINDLER, J. — Joseph Anthony appeals the amount and duration of maintenance awarded to Penny Anthony. Joseph also contends the \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" (QDRO) does not accurately reflect the trial court's decision. The court did not make a finding on the income of the parties, and the court did not address the ability of Joseph to meet his needs and financial obligations while meeting those of Penny or enter written findings on the statutory factors. We affirm the decision to award maintenance. But we remand"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: h said he works that amount of overtime to pay bills and does not want to continue working the same amount of overtime. Joseph testified he could pay $2,500 a month in maintenance to Penny and pay his expenses. Joseph testified the amount in his LTI 401(k) retirement account in 2014 was $26,000. Penny testified she receives $3,050 each month from Joseph and $500 a month in rent from her adult son Michael. Penny testified she has no retirement savings and wanted to remain in the family house. Penny testified that she planned to get her GED and then apply for minimum wage jobs. The court ruled at the conclusion of the tri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tified at trial. At the time of trial, Joseph was 53-years-old and Penny was 51-years-old. The court admitted a number of exhibits into evidence, including the financial declarations filed by Joseph and Penny and financial documents, including LTI W-2s and pension documentation. In his financial declaration, Joseph states his total gross monthly income is $7,807. He lists monthly wages of $3,504, overtime of $2,086, and military disability of $817. Joseph receives monthly military retirement income of $2,500. In his financial declaration, Joseph allocates $1,400 of the military retirement income to himself and $1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78faee28-a7aa-4bb5-a4e6-3224011d027f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4413045-4413045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4413045","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79065-0-1112 Although the","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . Joseph said he works that amount of overtime to pay bills and does not want to continue working the same amount of overtime. Joseph testified he could pay $2,500 a month in maintenance to Penny and pay his expenses. Joseph testified the amount in his LTI 401(k) retirement account in 2014 was $26,000. Penny testified she receives $3,050 each month from Joseph and $500 a month in rent from her adult son Michael. Penny testified she has no retirement savings and wanted to remain in the family house. Penny testified that she planned to get her GED and then apply for minimum wage jobs. The court ruled at the co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4414310 Extracted case name: DOOLING v. DOOLING. Extracted reporter citation: 904 N.W.2d 251. Docket: of days that the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4414310 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uly 2014. • \u0007The court awarded Kristina $7,690.80 of the house proceeds \"for monies expended to make the house marketable\" and evenly divided the balance of the proceeds. • \u0007The court equally divided Shawn's retirement, valued at $108,468.41, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. • \u0007The court equally divided Shawn's vacation and comp time and ordered Shawn to pay Kristina $5,754.69 within 90 days. The court did not award Kristina any of Shawn's sick time. • \u0007The court ordered Shawn to pay the balance on the parties' Visa credit card and ordered Kristina to pay a $637.73 medi- cal debt. • \u0007Shawn received a tax exemption for two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: uired during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties.20 Section 42-366(8) states that for purposes of the division of property in a dissolution of marriage action, \"[t]he court shall include as part of the marital estate . . . any pension plans, retirement plans, annuities, and other deferred com- pensation benefits owned by either party, whether vested or not vested.\"21 (Emphasis supplied.) Generally, deferred 20 Tyma v. Tyma, 263 Neb. 873, 644 N.W.2d 139 (2002). 21 See, Hosack v. Hosack, 267 Neb. 934, 678 N.W.2d 746 (2004); Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d 604 (2003); Tyma, supra note 20; Kullbom v."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2010. She claime"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c61faccb-6c75-465c-9db6-370b123b5292","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414310-4414310","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414310","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ony Kristina testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4be85f4a-9c75-4009-a633-b6bc6257a802","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00536-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"274 S.W.3d 811","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4414748 Extracted reporter citation: 274 S.W.3d 811. Docket: 05-18-00536-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4414748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4be85f4a-9c75-4009-a633-b6bc6257a802","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00536-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"274 S.W.3d 811","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4be85f4a-9c75-4009-a633-b6bc6257a802","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00536-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"274 S.W.3d 811","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OF M.S. AND M.D.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an \"enforcement\" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney G"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4be85f4a-9c75-4009-a633-b6bc6257a802","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00536-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"274 S.W.3d 811","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: llas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an \"enforcement\" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney General is collaterally estopped from requesting the issuance of a Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4be85f4a-9c75-4009-a633-b6bc6257a802","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4414748-4414748","title":"CourtListener opinion 4414748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00536-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"274 S.W.3d 811","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ND M.D.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an \"enforcement\" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney G"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b1a742-d30e-43f1-a03f-1a8d0ae33c72","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871","title":"CourtListener opinion 4415871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"594 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 A.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4415871 Extracted reporter citation: 904 A.2d 15. Docket: 594 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4415871 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b1a742-d30e-43f1-a03f-1a8d0ae33c72","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871","title":"CourtListener opinion 4415871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"594 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 A.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b1a742-d30e-43f1-a03f-1a8d0ae33c72","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871","title":"CourtListener opinion 4415871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"594 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 A.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and one-half of the Pension Plan. As Husband's requests, we have reviewed Exhibit A attached to the Master's report, which evinces the marital assets and the distribution of those assets. The exhibit shows that the Pension Plan was distributed 50/50 by a QDRO using a coverture fraction. Moreover, the exhibit also shows that the amounts attributed to the non-qualified plan, the EPP, was a separate asset. Thus, Husband has failed to identify anything in the record that would indicate that the Pension Plan benefit was already subsumed in the $11,493.80 monthly payment awarded to Wife relating to the EPP. Thus,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b1a742-d30e-43f1-a03f-1a8d0ae33c72","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871","title":"CourtListener opinion 4415871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"594 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 A.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , the court's order affirmed the Master's determination that a 50/50 split of marital assets was appropriate. The court also affirmed the Master's determination that Husband had dissipated a marital asset by relinquishing his interest in WEC's executive pension plan (EPP), during contract renegotiation in 2016 with WEC, which occurred between the parties' separation in 2015, and the trial in this matter. -4- J-A12009-19 As part of the renegotiation with WEC and Toshiba, Husband received a $7,000,000 Nationwide insurance policy, which was paid into an irrevocable trust for his benefit. At the same time, with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07b1a742-d30e-43f1-a03f-1a8d0ae33c72","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4415871-4415871","title":"CourtListener opinion 4415871","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"594 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 A.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Rosemary Roderick (Wife) appeals and Daniel L. Roderick (Husband) cross-appeals from the trial court's order, dated and entered on March 22, 2018, dismissing both Wife's and Husband's exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation, which dealt with equitable distribution and support issues.1 Wife also appealed and Husband cross-appealed from the order, dated and entered on August 21, 2018, that provided for a method of deferred ____________________________________________ 1The following day, on March 23, 2018, the trial court entered the divorce decree. -2- J-A12009-19 monthly equitable payments to Wife, which were"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4419596 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PAMELA LOUISE PARLEE AND JONATHAN DAVID PARLEE Upon the Petition of PAMELA LOUISE. Extracted reporter citation: 807 N.W.2d 289. Docket: 18-1808. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4419596 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and the anticipated monthly pay-out on the account at retirement. The record supports a finding that Pam does not have a pension account and Jon has this single pension account. The FERS pension account shall be divided using the Benson formula through a QDRO awarding Pam her marital portion of the FERS pension. Jon also had an Edward Jones traditional IRA account that he cashed out in January 2017 in the amount of $35,861.85. The amount of cash Jon received in January 2017 was $25,103.29. This liquidation was done without Pam's knowledge or consent and was done before the parties separated. Jon testified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pay, and we find the court's extrapolation of his earnings in the amount of $83,887 was supported by the evidence presented.4 He listed monthly expenses of $3653.54. The parties' annual incomes differ by $50,000. The court discussed the value of parties' retirement accounts and distributed them equitably: 4 As found by the court, Jon is on pace to earn $83,887 in gross wages in calendar year 2018. He has worked overtime during his career at USPS. Jon's overtime is not guaranteed but has been regular and consistent throughout his career. Jon's current annual salary is $69,327. He receives additional income due to his sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ount to pay her legal fees. She withdrew funds in the total amount of $11,779.72 and received $10,000. The balance was held to pay toward state and federal taxes. This information is confirmed by Pam's testimony and exhibits. Pam testified that she has no pension accounts and that the Ace Body and Motor SEP Account is the only retirement account she has. Jon has a Thrift Savings Plan with a value of $58,800.19 as of December 31, 2017. Jon offered no updated statements for this account at the time of trial. Jon also has a Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) pension account. Jon provided a statement to ref"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"64d9fb4b-b970-4971-a313-fb5bb7038ad6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4419596-4419596","title":"CourtListener opinion 4419596","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-1808","extracted_reporter_citation":"807 N.W.2d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: support awarded. See Mauer, 874 N.W.2d at 106 (\"[W]e will disturb a district court determination [in a dissolution proceeding] only when there has been a failure to do equity.\"). The trial court correctly noted the statutory factors used to determine an equitable distribution of marital assets and spousal support and analyzed those 4 factors. At the time of the trial, the parties had been married for thirty-five years. Both were in their fifties, and the trial court found both were in \"fair\" health. Neither had advanced degrees at the time of marriage. Both parties worked fulltime throughout the marriage, with Pam earning s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3755260-dfba-4e6f-93fe-e81539d60719","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119","title":"CourtListener opinion 4423119","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"201 A.3d 728","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4423119 Extracted reporter citation: 201 A.3d 728. Docket: 6 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4423119 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3755260-dfba-4e6f-93fe-e81539d60719","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119","title":"CourtListener opinion 4423119","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"201 A.3d 728","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3755260-dfba-4e6f-93fe-e81539d60719","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119","title":"CourtListener opinion 4423119","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"201 A.3d 728","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-18-08912 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 06, 2019 Bruce L. Clark (\"Husband\") appeals pro se from the order denying his petition to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in the divorce action between Husband and Lysbeth W. Clark (\"Wife\"). After our review, we affirm. The parties signed a post-nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. On July 8, 2016, Wife filed a petition to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted Wife's petition. In response, Husband filed various motions. On July 14, 2016, Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3755260-dfba-4e6f-93fe-e81539d60719","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119","title":"CourtListener opinion 4423119","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"201 A.3d 728","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a petition for a QDRO on December 8, 2016, and the trial court scheduled the matter to be heard on December 13, 2016. On December 15, 2016, the parties reached an agreement and executed a QDRO with respect to Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension. However, from January of 2017 through mid-November 2017, Husband filed six petitions challenging the validity of the post-nuptial agreement. These petitions were all denied. Husband filed an appeal to this Court and, in 2018, we affirmed the trial court's order denying Husband's motion for the \"Determination of the Obvious Validity of the Defendant's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3755260-dfba-4e6f-93fe-e81539d60719","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4423119-4423119","title":"CourtListener opinion 4423119","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"6 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"201 A.3d 728","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ter County Civil Division at No(s): CI-18-08912 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 06, 2019 Bruce L. Clark (\"Husband\") appeals pro se from the order denying his petition to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entered in the divorce action between Husband and Lysbeth W. Clark (\"Wife\"). After our review, we affirm. The parties signed a post-nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. On July 8, 2016, Wife filed a petition to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted Wife's petition. In response, Husband filed various motions. On July 14, 2016, Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5e0a40-e963-46c3-a72c-d9129c2b1208","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4424908 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Zamudio. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4424908 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5e0a40-e963-46c3-a72c-d9129c2b1208","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5e0a40-e963-46c3-a72c-d9129c2b1208","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 16. At issue during the dissolution proceedings was whether Frank's 48 months of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement Systems pension, was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5e0a40-e963-46c3-a72c-d9129c2b1208","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s that were available to teachers with at least 20 years of service by making two one-time payments to the TRS of $7397.46 and $6390.60. Id. at 754-55. Following the husband's retirement later that year, the wife filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO) to divide the husband's pension. Id. at 755. The Massac County circuit court found that the husband's nonmarital monetary contributions could not be severed from the rest of his pension, and thus, it included the portion of the pension attributable to the early retirement incentives purchased by the husband as part of the marital pension. Id. T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af5e0a40-e963-46c3-a72c-d9129c2b1208","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424908-4424908","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement Systems pension, was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial court's ruling. ¶2 Louise appeals, asserting the trial court's judgment is reversible er"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4424912 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Docket: 1-17-2135. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4424912 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The executor and Betty filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal action. The executor argued that, under ERISA, the divorce decree constituted a \"qualified domestic relations order\" (QDRO), 1 such that the estate, rather than Betty, was the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of the 401(k) account. Alternatively, the executor argued that, even if the divorce decree was not a QDRO under ERISA, Betty could only receive the funds in the 401(k) account as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the estate. Betty's cross-motion argued that t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: xecutor), as executor of the estate of P. Kevin Cunningham (the decedent), filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant-appellant Betty Cunningham (Betty), seeking a declaratory judgment regarding funds from the decedent's 401(k) retirement account. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the executor and against Betty. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The decedent and Betty were married in 1981. During and after the marriage, the decedent was employed by Loparex LLC (Loparex)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f her IRA at Invesco and her 401(k) account ***. The Husband [the decedent] shall retain sole ownership of his IRA at Invesco and his 401(k) account at Fidelity. Each party warrants and represents that neither he nor she has any other interest in any other pension, IRA, 401(k) ESOP, or other retirement plan, except as may be specified above.\" ¶6 The divorce decree subsequently stated that: \"Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties hereto does hereby forever relinquish, release, waive, and quitclaim to the other party hereto all property rights and claims which he or she now has or may hereafter ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"28ac0922-3c28-4e13-b91a-bf272ace8c19","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4424912-4424912","title":"CourtListener opinion 4424912","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-17-2135","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: al court with respect to the 401(k) account. The executor filed an answer and counterclaim in the interpleader action, alleging that the estate was the proper beneficiary of the 401(k) plan under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2012)). In addition, the executor also asserted state law claims against Betty, alleging breach of the divorce decree and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of the estate. The funds from the 401(k) account were deposited with the clerk of the federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4426292 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Marek. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 18A-DR-2860 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4426292 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rds Jones IRA in the amount of $29,447.66. 18. Husband's Unimin 401(k) shall be equally (50/50) divided, with the exception of the $85,002.26 pre-marital rollover amount, with Wife to receive a lump sum $173,182.77 by qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 19. Husband's Unimin Pension plan shall be equally (50/50) [divided] by QDRO. The Court finds Wife's interest to be in the amount of $37,116.86. Husband shall become the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 20. Husband shall become the sole owner of the Putnam Investment account. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 0/50) divided, with the exception of the $85,002.26 pre-marital rollover amount, with Wife to receive a lump sum $173,182.77 by qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 19. Husband's Unimin Pension plan shall be equally (50/50) [divided] by QDRO. The Court finds Wife's interest to be in the amount of $37,116.86. Husband shall become the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 20. Husband shall become the sole owner of the Putnam Investment account. The court concludes this to be a premarital asset. 21. Husband shall become the sole owner of his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d's valuations of the residence, farm land and operations convincing. 60. The Court finds Wife's valuations of the residence[,] farm land and operations convincing. …. 63. Based upon evidence and testimony presented the Court finds Husband's [Unimin] 401(k) to have a pre-marital rollover amount of $85,002.26 which will be fully set aside to him. 64. Based upon evidence and testimony the Court finds Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 4 of 17 Husband's Unimin 401(k) valued at $346,365.53. …. 66. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ab3fd919-4d88-4075-af5a-0359bd7234b1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426292-4426292","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426292","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18A-DR-2860 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the sole owner of the Edwards Jones IRA in the amount of $29,447.66. 18. Husband's Unimin 401(k) shall be equally (50/50) divided, with the exception of the $85,002.26 pre-marital rollover amount, with Wife to receive a lump sum $173,182.77 by qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 19. Husband's Unimin Pension plan shall be equally (50/50) [divided] by QDRO. The Court finds Wife's interest to be in the amount of $37,116.86. Husband shall become the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 20. Husband shall become the sole owner of the Putnam Investment account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4426786 Extracted reporter citation: 647 F.3d 221. Docket: 32 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4426786 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019 Appellant, Tina M. Jago (\"Wife\"), appeals from the order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, which vacated a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") the court had previously entered upon joint petition of Wife and Geoffrey H. Jago (\"Husband\") and denied the parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlue Airways Retirement Plan (\"Plan\").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Reti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: granting an interest in the benefits of the participant's retirement plan to a non-participant. Id. at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(1)). \"The purpose of the proscription, in ERISA, on alienation and assignment of pension funds is to protect the participant from [the participant's] own financial improvidence.\" Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2001). ERISA's anti-alienation provision is compulsory and has few limited statutory exceptions. Boggs, supra at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1056(d)(2), (3)(A)). ERISA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aec0df3f-30c2-41d8-9098-33d6b51f1227","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4426786-4426786","title":"CourtListener opinion 4426786","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"32 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"647 F.3d 221","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: (\"Plan\").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S26018-19 the couple filed a \"Verified Joint Petition for QDRO.\" In the petition, the parties sought to transfer $400,000.00 from the Plan to an individual retirement account (\"IRA\") in Wife's name. The petition"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4427027 Extracted case name: MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4427027 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 5 MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA Decision of the Court I. The Appeal Is Timely. ¶9 Rakesh argues the appeal is untimely because Neera did not appeal a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in August 2011 or a February 2015 order addressing some of the same issues. Assuming those decisions were appealable orders, Rakesh has not shown how Neera was aggrieved by those decisions or that they were inconsistent with the Decree. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 1(d) (requiring a party to be aggrieved to appeal). It was not until entry of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: STORY ¶2 Rakesh petitioned for divorce in late 2006, and after significant motion practice and a trial, in May 2011, the court entered the Decree. Rakesh, who is a medical doctor, was the chief operating officer of Saguaro Medical Associates (SMA). SMA had a retirement plan called the SMA Pension Plan or Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan). Along with awarding other assets, as relevant here, the Decree stated: At trial, it was undisputed that the following assets titled in the [Plan] were community property. The values of these assets were also undisputed: Cash in the amount of $12,000; stocks and bonds valued at $572,226; C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: divorce in late 2006, and after significant motion practice and a trial, in May 2011, the court entered the Decree. Rakesh, who is a medical doctor, was the chief operating officer of Saguaro Medical Associates (SMA). SMA had a retirement plan called the SMA Pension Plan or Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan). Along with awarding other assets, as relevant here, the Decree stated: At trial, it was undisputed that the following assets titled in the [Plan] were community property. The values of these assets were also undisputed: Cash in the amount of $12,000; stocks and bonds valued at $572,226; Cash value of two New Yo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfebef18-3f97-449f-be1d-ed719717ca89","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427027-4427027","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 5 MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA Decision of the Court I. The Appeal Is Timely. ¶9 Rakesh argues the appeal is untimely because Neera did not appeal a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in August 2011 or a February 2015 order addressing some of the same issues. Assuming those decisions were appealable orders, Rakesh has not shown how Neera was aggrieved by those decisions or that they were inconsistent with the Decree. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 1(d) (requiring a party to be aggrieved to appeal). It was not until entry of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f481c386-6cb9-430c-b0cd-ffdfaaacd8c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 S.W.3d 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4427266 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Werths. Extracted reporter citation: 33 S.W.3d 541. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4427266 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f481c386-6cb9-430c-b0cd-ffdfaaacd8c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 S.W.3d 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f481c386-6cb9-430c-b0cd-ffdfaaacd8c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 S.W.3d 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocedural requirements for the appeal.\" Id. at 596. Spiece relied on Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), as further authority to require the circuit court to denominate an order as a judgment before it could be appealed. Brooks involved a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which is a 6 \"special order after a final judgment\" that may be appealed pursuant to section 512.020(5). Brooks held, \"Although the QDRO is an appealable special order, to perfect the appeal it is still necessary to denominate the order as a ‘judgment or decree.'\" Id. at 532. In Spiece, the appellant tried to distinguish and limit Brooks' ho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f481c386-6cb9-430c-b0cd-ffdfaaacd8c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4427266-4427266","title":"CourtListener opinion 4427266","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 S.W.3d 541","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: equirements for the appeal.\" Id. at 596. Spiece relied on Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), as further authority to require the circuit court to denominate an order as a judgment before it could be appealed. Brooks involved a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which is a 6 \"special order after a final judgment\" that may be appealed pursuant to section 512.020(5). Brooks held, \"Although the QDRO is an appealable special order, to perfect the appeal it is still necessary to denominate the order as a ‘judgment or decree.'\" Id. at 532. In Spiece, the appellant tried to distinguish and limit Brooks' ho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22e74940-7175-41ed-8268-b6f7278dcf13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4428634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4428634 Docket: A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4428634 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22e74940-7175-41ed-8268-b6f7278dcf13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4428634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22e74940-7175-41ed-8268-b6f7278dcf13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4428634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: GEIGER, J.A.D. In this post-judgment matrimonial appeal, we consider whether a court may compel reimbursement of college tuition, forensic accountant's fees, and counsel fees, through an enhanced wage garnishment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) against the obligor's individual annuity account funds on deposit in an annuity governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22e74940-7175-41ed-8268-b6f7278dcf13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4428634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDRO from ERISA protected pension funds when an ex-spouse is the alternative payee of the QDRO. We further hold the counsel fee judgments relating to child and spousal support are enforceable through an enhanced wage garnishment. I. The complex procedural history underlying this appeal necessitates a brief review of the proceedings that led to the arrearages owed to plaintiff Joanna"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22e74940-7175-41ed-8268-b6f7278dcf13","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4428634-4428634","title":"CourtListener opinion 4428634","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s fees, and counsel fees, through an enhanced wage garnishment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) against the obligor's individual annuity account funds on deposit in an annuity governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDRO from ERISA protected pension funds when an ex-spouse is the alternative payee of the QDRO. We further hold the counsel fee judgments relating to child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4431332 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Russell. Extracted reporter citation: 411 S.W.3d 445. Docket: sheet. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4431332 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tances.\" Neither party filed a post-trial motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment. The trial court lost plenary power as of June 11, 2017. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d). Robert subsequently presented Sharon with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)1 that awarded Robert $100,000 of Sharon's 401(k).2 Sharon then filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, arguing that the final divorce decree contained a clerical error causing the distribution of the marital estate to be erroneously divided in a manner not in compliance with the MSA and asking the trial court to correct the clerical error. See Tex. R. C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: because it would be correcting a judicial error. At the hearing, the trial court indicated to the parties that it intended to grant Sharon's motion. Robert offered and the trial court admitted his responsive brief. 1 A QDRO permits payment of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits to an alternate payee. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101. 2 The trial court already had signed a QRDO that awarded Sharon $100,000 of Robert's 401(k) in compliance with the MSA. 3 Sharon also offered various documents, to some of which Robert stipulated and to some of which he objected. The trial court admitted all of Sharon's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he decree because it would be correcting a judicial error. At the hearing, the trial court indicated to the parties that it intended to grant Sharon's motion. Robert offered and the trial court admitted his responsive brief. 1 A QDRO permits payment of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits to an alternate payee. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101. 2 The trial court already had signed a QRDO that awarded Sharon $100,000 of Robert's 401(k) in compliance with the MSA. 3 Sharon also offered various documents, to some of which Robert stipulated and to some of which he objected. The trial court admitte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5aeaa87-c600-4c09-ad22-ce90e32a60da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4431332-4431332","title":"CourtListener opinion 4431332","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet","extracted_reporter_citation":"411 S.W.3d 445","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): signed another MSA regarding their property on March 1, 2017 and filed it with the trial court. See id. In pertinent part, this MSA provided that Robert was to receive all property listed on the attached exhibit A, which expressly included $50,000 of Sharon's 401(k) as of March 1, 2017. The exhibit further stated: \"Husband is awarded a lump sum of $50,000, regardless of market fluctuation.\" On May 1, 2017, the trial court held a prove-up hearing. The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. The judge's docket-sheet notation states: \"Uncontested Divorce. W present w/atty. H's atty present. Amicus present."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4433168 Extracted case name: HEATHER WILSON v. MICHAEL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4433168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: alimony to the defendant; that court created an effectively equal division of the parties' marital assets by ordering the plaintiff to discharge the mortgage on the marital property, in which the defendant continues to reside, and to convey funds from her retirement plan to the defendant. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in its property division by making a property award enforceable by a modifiable alimony award; the court, which entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order but recognized that a decision by the plaintiff"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the parties' young children and allowing the plaintiff to continue working. The defendant took an early retirement package and elected, irrevocably, the 50 percent option form of reduced retirement income for the plaintiff's benefit.3 The defendant's current pension payment is $393 per week, and he receives social security income in the amount of $249 per week. The court found the defen- dant's net income to be $842 per week, based on a gross income of $982 per week.4 The court declined the plaintiff's request to impute $27,105 in annual retire- ment income withdrawals to the defendant from his retirement investment ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lan to the defendant. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in its property division by making a property award enforceable by a modifiable alimony award; the court, which entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order but recognized that a decision by the plaintiff to remarry could divest the defendant of that award because a new spouse would have to consent to the designation of the defendant as the survivor beneficiary under the terms of the plaintiff's retirement plan, acted within its discre- tion in fashioning the award, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5736cc9b-bea1-48b6-bd8a-c929738caa09","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433168-4433168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433168","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e retired and that, if the plaintiff is remarried when she retires, the new spouse would have to consent to the designation of the defen- dant as the survivor beneficiary. The court entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order.5 The court fur- ther ordered that no alimony was payable by one party to the other except as set forth in section G.4 of the dissolution judgment, which governed the distribution of the parties' respective retirement accounts. Pursuant to section G.4 (v) of the dissolution judgment, the defen- dant was awarded $1 per year in alimony ‘‘modifiable only to en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4433527 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4433527 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, in her third and fourth assignments of error, also argues that the circuit court improperly utilized its contempt power to \"require\" or \"order\" her to make an early withdrawal from her retirement account, we address that argument below. - 11 - without a [qualified domestic relations order] . . . creates a ‘current and actual' ‘ability to pay,' is erroneous as a matter of law, arbitrary and capricious, and a clear abuse of discretion.\" To the extent that wife's assignment of error challenges the circuit court's finding that she has the ability to pay the amounts owed, we hold that wife has waived any such argument. Neither in closing arg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ality on the circuit court's final order of divorce after twenty-one days. We thus hold that the circuit court did not err in entering further orders in this matter, including the contempt order at issue in this appeal.3 Creating a \"Back Door\" to Invade a Retirement Account (Assignment of Error Four) Wife argues that the circuit erred by entering its contempt order because the order \"creates a ‘back door' to invade a retirement account where there is no qualified domestic relations order.\" She contends that the circuit court's \"finding that the retirement account 3 To the extent that wife, in her third and fourth assig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: third and fourth assignments of error, also argues that the circuit court improperly utilized its contempt power to \"require\" or \"order\" her to make an early withdrawal from her retirement account, we address that argument below. - 11 - without a [qualified domestic relations order] . . . creates a ‘current and actual' ‘ability to pay,' is erroneous as a matter of law, arbitrary and capricious, and a clear abuse of discretion.\" To the extent that wife's assignment of error challenges the circuit court's finding that she has the ability to pay the amounts owed, we hold that wife has waived any such argument. Neither in closing arg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b76a176-f4ae-4859-8a2b-532e5fb756e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4433527-4433527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4433527","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: . . July 1st [2013]\" and that the award would be \"nonmodifiable\" and \"without prejudice . . . to [husband] regarding child support.\" Both parties affirmed that the agreement, which was read into the record, \"resolv[ed] all issues in [the] case,\" including equitable distribution, child support, spousal support, and the grounds for the divorce. The agreement was silent on attorney's fees. The circuit court's final order of divorce incorporated the settlement agreement. It also provided that husband would maintain health and dental insurance for the children and that certain expenses that were not covered by husband's insurance"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4434016 Extracted case name: R.M. v. L.M. Extracted reporter citation: 448 A.2d 223. Docket: of months that the pension plan participant was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4434016 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: inded the February 17, 2009 order. After Borne's bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice, the Family Court reinstated the February 17, 2009 order in its entirety with a new effective date of May 26, 2009. 3 pension failed because Borne had not filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as required by the Ancillary Order. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the corrected rule to show cause and advised Borne to seek the assistance of an attorney to aid him in drafting the QDRO and submit it to the military to pursue his claim for a portion of Reynold's military benefits. (6) On January 12, 2017, Borne filed a motion to co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: anted Reynold's motion to offset; (v) denied Borne's petition for order to show cause for contempt and fraud, motion to compel, motion for satisfaction of child support, motion for discovery, and 5 The VA waiver allows veterans to waive a portion of their retirement benefits in exchange for VA benefits. Reynold receives a 30% disability benefit due to back injuries sustained during her military service. Disability benefits are not divisible marital property. R.M. v. L.M., 2017 WL 4335170, at *6 (Del. Fam. Ct. July 12, 2017). 5 memorandum in support of fraud; and (vi) awarded Reynold attorneys' fees and costs. This appeal f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: filed by Borne and his ex-wife, Betty H. Reynold. The Family Court: (i) determined the fraction to be used to calculate Borne's and Reynold's respective shares of each other's military pensions; (ii) concluded that Reynold owed Borne $47,900.40 in military pension arrears, retroactive to June 1, 2012; (iii) granted Reynold's motion to offset the arrearage by 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). sums Borne owed to Reynold under a prior Family Court order; and (iv) denied various other motions filed by Borne, finding them to be \"filings seek[ing] to re- litigate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cbb76c1f-d2df-436d-bdba-344745674ba9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434016-4434016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months that the pension plan participant was","extracted_reporter_citation":"448 A.2d 223","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: February 17, 2009 order. After Borne's bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice, the Family Court reinstated the February 17, 2009 order in its entirety with a new effective date of May 26, 2009. 3 pension failed because Borne had not filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as required by the Ancillary Order. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the corrected rule to show cause and advised Borne to seek the assistance of an attorney to aid him in drafting the QDRO and submit it to the military to pursue his claim for a portion of Reynold's military benefits. (6) On January 12, 2017, Borne filed a motion to co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4434724 Docket: 17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4434724 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ohnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not specify the date on which the valuation and division of the IBM p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he IBM pension, the trial court ordered: [Johnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not sp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n a judgment dated November 16, 2005, the trial court granted Johnson and defendant-appellee, Donald McCarthy, a divorce. In addition to determining custody and support issues, the trial court also divided the parties' marital assets, including McCarthy's IBM pension. At the time of the divorce, McCarthy's IBM pension benefits were vested, but No. 17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial court found that the entirety of the IBM pension constituted marital property. In dividing the IBM pension, the trial court ordered: [Johnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9b9eba2a-53de-452a-93ab-2b907fc62679","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4434724-4434724","title":"CourtListener opinion 4434724","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not specify the date on which the valuation and division of the IBM p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7758c02d-9e08-401b-a292-64ad77d87afc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413","title":"CourtListener opinion 4438413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of continuances","extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4438413 Extracted case name: JILL GILBERT CALLAHAN v. JAMES CALLAHAN. Extracted reporter citation: 116 A.3d 317. Docket: of continuances. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4438413 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7758c02d-9e08-401b-a292-64ad77d87afc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413","title":"CourtListener opinion 4438413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of continuances","extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7758c02d-9e08-401b-a292-64ad77d87afc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413","title":"CourtListener opinion 4438413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of continuances","extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: longings and transferred title to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff shall be solely responsible for all of the above referenced costs pertaining to the property and she shall hold the defendant harmless thereon.'' 28 See footnote 1 of this opinion. 29 ‘‘A QDRO is the exclusive means by which to assign to a nonemployee spouse all or any portion of pension benefits provided by a plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.'' Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783, 786 n.4, 663 A.2d 365 (1995)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7758c02d-9e08-401b-a292-64ad77d87afc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413","title":"CourtListener opinion 4438413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of continuances","extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e defendant's overpayment.10 Thus, a reversal of the court's suspension of alimony payments would not afford the plaintiff any practical relief because the amount of the defendant's overpayment was reduced by the amount of alimony that accrued during the sus- pension. Thus, the issue on appeal is moot and, as a result, we do not reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim. See Altraide v. Altraide, supra, 153 Conn. App. 332. IV The plaintiff's fourth claim on appeal is that the court, on remand, erred in determining that the May, 2012 financial orders, which this court ordered reinstated; see Callahan v. Callahan, supra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7758c02d-9e08-401b-a292-64ad77d87afc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4438413-4438413","title":"CourtListener opinion 4438413","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of continuances","extracted_reporter_citation":"116 A.3d 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: her marriage to the defendant. The matter was tried to the court, Munro, J., in March, 2012. On May 8, 2012, the court issued a memorandum of decision rendering judgment dissolving the parties' marriage on the ground of irre- trievable breakdown, and entering property division and alimony orders (May, 2012 dissolution judgment). On June 15, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment of dissolution and attendant financial orders, which was granted on November 6, 2012. The court then held an evidentiary hearing and, in a Febru- ary 27, 2014 memorandum of decision, issued substitute financial orders (February, 2014 deci"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4439149 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439149 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e of the pension based upon a marriage term of six years—a period that represented the time that the parties were together during Todd's military service.1 {¶ 4} To implement the pension division, the judgment specified that a consulting firm would prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")2 and submit it to the court for approval within 45 days of the entry of the decree. (A QDRO is a court order that \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7.) The judgment further provided that the court would re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: is opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Walsh v. Walsh, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3723.] Divorce—R.C. 3105.171(I)—Property division in final decree of divorce is not modifiable unless both spouses consent—Military retirement benefits— Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. 1408—A trial court does not have jurisdiction under Civ.R. 60(B) to modify a division of property in a final decree of divorce when both spouses have not consented to the modification. (No. 2018-1073—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided September 18, 2019.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: modifiable \"except upon the express written SUPREME COURT OF OHIO consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses.\" In the case before us, the domestic-relations court granted relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) to modify a decree that divided pension benefits even though both parties had not agreed to the modification. We conclude that the trial court lacked authority to modify the decree. Because the court of appeals below held otherwise, we reverse its judgment. I. BACKGROUND A. The terms of the divorce decree {¶ 2} Todd and Sandra Walsh married in August 1994 and separated six years later. More th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"124a9f6a-b7f4-4186-aca4-2fc70c889463","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439149-4439149","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"878 N.E.2d 16","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ension based upon a marriage term of six years—a period that represented the time that the parties were together during Todd's military service.1 {¶ 4} To implement the pension division, the judgment specified that a consulting firm would prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")2 and submit it to the court for approval within 45 days of the entry of the decree. (A QDRO is a court order that \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7.) The judgment further provided that the court would re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4439669 Extracted reporter citation: 83 N.E.3d 999. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439669 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 8, but those exhibits are not in the record. However, the wording of the final decree is not in dispute. Husband has a vested pension in [the] Police and Fireman's Pension Fund all of which was accumulated during the term of the marriage. Husband shall by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assign to Wife fifty (50) percent of said pension as of the date of the divorce and Wife shall be entitled to all post-retirement benefits of said plan including, but not limited to, all cost of living and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s Pension Fund all of which was accumulated during the term of the marriage. Husband shall by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assign to Wife fifty (50) percent of said pension as of the date of the divorce and Wife shall be entitled to all post-retirement benefits of said plan including, but not limited to, all cost of living and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the OP&F Pension Fund on January 10, 2005. The DPO set forth the following language: II. Amount Payable to the Alternate Payee: Upon the Plan Parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , J.: Defendant-appellant, Geraldine Hollingshead, appeals from a judgment denying her three motions (motion for relief from judgment, motion to adopt an amended Division of Property Order (\"DPO\"), and motion for an order requiring the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund (\"OP&F Pension Fund\") to provide Grisafo's \"personal history record\" to her), and granting plaintiff-appellee Kevin Grisafo's motion for attorney fees. Hollingshead raises five assignments of error for our review: 1. The trial court erred in finding that the [DPO] was consistent with the Final Decree. 2. The trial court erred in finding that ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b48f40e2-217a-4561-a673-a3abe55564a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439669-4439669","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439669","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"83 N.E.3d 999","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: g and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the OP&F Pension Fund on January 10, 2005. The DPO set forth the following language: II. Amount Payable to the Alternate Payee: Upon the Plan Participant [Grisafo] receiving a payment from the Public Retirement Program [the OP&F Pension Fund], the court orders that the Alternate Payee [Hollingshead] shall receive payment in accordance with and subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 3105.82 to 3105.90. (Please designate the type and the method of payment): A. Type o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c05b0789-a4d3-42d4-b69e-0a508f045a95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23628-17","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4439887 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 23628-17. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439887 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c05b0789-a4d3-42d4-b69e-0a508f045a95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23628-17","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c05b0789-a4d3-42d4-b69e-0a508f045a95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23628-17","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: in exceptions in section 72(t)(2). See sec. 4974(c). The statutory scheme expressly addresses transfers as part of property settlements incident to divorce or separation, providing an exception for a distribution made to an alternative payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2)(C). Petitioner's withdrawal does not fit that exception. See, e.g., Hartley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012- 311. -5- [*5] Petitioner does not argue that the Merrill Lynch withdrawal is not income or that any statutory exception in section 72(t)(2) applies; he argues rather that the Court should (1) disregard entirely the Merrill Lynch"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c05b0789-a4d3-42d4-b69e-0a508f045a95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23628-17","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: amended, in effect for the year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. -2- [*2] The issues for decision are whether petitioner's withdrawal from his individual retirement account (IRA) is (1) included in gross income and (2) subject to the 10% additional tax on early distributions from qualified retirement plans imposed by section 72(t). FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in California when he ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c05b0789-a4d3-42d4-b69e-0a508f045a95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4439887-4439887","title":"CourtListener opinion 4439887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23628-17","extracted_reporter_citation":"290 U.S. 111","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ons in section 72(t)(2). See sec. 4974(c). The statutory scheme expressly addresses transfers as part of property settlements incident to divorce or separation, providing an exception for a distribution made to an alternative payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2)(C). Petitioner's withdrawal does not fit that exception. See, e.g., Hartley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012- 311. -5- [*5] Petitioner does not argue that the Merrill Lynch withdrawal is not income or that any statutory exception in section 72(t)(2) applies; he argues rather that the Court should (1) disregard entirely the Merrill Lynch"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4441033 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1736 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4441033 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hompson's SERS disability pension. Specifically, Brenda Thompson argues while a portion of the pension represents disability payments made to Steven Thompson which were owed him following a shoulder injury suffered while on duty as a corrections officer, a QDRO could determine what portion was attributable to disability and what portion would be attributable to what we will call the earned pension. She further argues as -2- J-S27030-19 the earned pension is a marital asset, she should be awarded a portion of that pension. We begin by reiterating that a review of the distribution of marital assets looks t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rdering distribution of assets. In this timely appeal, Brenda Thompson raises two claims. She argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her, (1) an equitable share of Steven Thompson's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System pension (SERS), and (2) an equitable share of the fair rental value of the marital residence that Steven Thompson occupied from the date of separation. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm. Our standard of review when examining an order regarding equitable distribution of marital assets i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): pson], however, is already limited in what he can do, any worsening of his health would cause him to lose his bus driver's income, leaving him only his retirement until he could qualify for Social Security. Further, as noted, [Brenda Thompson] has begun a 401K at her present employment. Under these circumstances, it does not appear to be appropriate to award any portion of the retirement to [Brenda Thompson]. However, [Steven Thompson] chose joint and survivor status on the retirement, the Court will order him not to modify the current survivor who is [Brenda Thompson]. At the time of [Steven Thompson's] de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4b4d8f13-7002-404c-a6bc-11e77bb902e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441033-4441033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1736 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"167 A.3d 127","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: hompson] chose joint and survivor status on the retirement, the Court will order him not to modify the current survivor who is [Brenda Thompson]. At the time of [Steven Thompson's] death years from now, if [Brenda Thompson] survives [Steven Thompson], the survivor benefit will aid [Brenda Thompson] in her retirement, and reward her for her substantial contribution to the marriage as a homemaker and mother, without further detriment to [Steven Thompson]. Trial Court Opinion, at 8. The trial court provided reasoning behind the decision to leave the SERS pension in Steven Thompson's name. That decision provides both part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb1cf6c-9b05-4ea2-b9b4-bbceeb658af8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3001 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"460 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4441854 Extracted reporter citation: 460 U.S. 462. Docket: 19-3001 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4441854 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb1cf6c-9b05-4ea2-b9b4-bbceeb658af8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3001 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"460 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb1cf6c-9b05-4ea2-b9b4-bbceeb658af8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3001 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"460 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: litigation, Saghafi repeatedly attacked the family court's jurisdiction, but never succeeded. The family court rejected Saghafi's arguments and entered a divorce decree, which was affirmed on appeal. Shortly after the divorce, the family court issued two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) requiring Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds. He ignored the orders. The family court found Saghafi in contempt and encouraged Bakhtiar to enforce the QDROs in a federal ERISA action. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Which led to this case. As Bakhtiar's guardian, Simonoff filed this action for declaratory and injunctive rel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb1cf6c-9b05-4ea2-b9b4-bbceeb658af8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3001 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"460 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: THAPAR, Circuit Judge. All family disputes are sad. This one is no exception. But we need not determine who is in the right. All we must decide is whether the district court made a reasonable judgment call when it declined to award attorney's fees in this ERISA enforcement suit. It did, and we affirm. I. Dr. Mehdi Saghafi and Fourough Bakhtiar had been married for 55 years when things took a turn. Within a few days of each other, Saghafi filed for guardianship of his wife on the ground of incompetence, and Bakhtiar filed for divorce. Here's what happened according to Saghafi. His and Bakhtiar's estranged"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1cb1cf6c-9b05-4ea2-b9b4-bbceeb658af8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4441854-4441854","title":"CourtListener opinion 4441854","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-3001 UNITED STATES","extracted_reporter_citation":"460 U.S. 462","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n, Saghafi repeatedly attacked the family court's jurisdiction, but never succeeded. The family court rejected Saghafi's arguments and entered a divorce decree, which was affirmed on appeal. Shortly after the divorce, the family court issued two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) requiring Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds. He ignored the orders. The family court found Saghafi in contempt and encouraged Bakhtiar to enforce the QDROs in a federal ERISA action. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Which led to this case. As Bakhtiar's guardian, Simonoff filed this action for declaratory and injunctive rel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4442202 Extracted case name: DOOLING v. DOOLING. Extracted reporter citation: 904 N.W.2d 251. Docket: of days that the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4442202 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uly 2014. • \u0007The court awarded Kristina $7,690.80 of the house proceeds \"for monies expended to make the house marketable\" and evenly divided the balance of the proceeds. • \u0007The court equally divided Shawn's retirement, valued at $108,468.41, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. • \u0007The court equally divided Shawn's vacation and comp time and ordered Shawn to pay Kristina $5,754.69 within 90 days. The court did not award Kristina any of Shawn's sick time. • \u0007The court ordered Shawn to pay the balance on the parties' Visa credit card and ordered Kristina to pay a $637.73 medi- cal debt. • \u0007Shawn received a tax exemption for two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: uired during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties.20 Section 42-366(8) states that for purposes of the division of property in a dissolution of marriage action, \"[t]he court shall include as part of the marital estate . . . any pension plans, retirement plans, annuities, and other deferred com- pensation benefits owned by either party, whether vested or not vested.\"21 (Emphasis supplied.) Generally, deferred 20 Tyma v. Tyma, 263 Neb. 873, 644 N.W.2d 139 (2002). 21 See, Hosack v. Hosack, 267 Neb. 934, 678 N.W.2d 746 (2004); Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d 604 (2003); Tyma, supra note 20; Kullbom v."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2010. She claime"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa48320e-3dd3-4a87-96e8-a86a5319f57e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442202-4442202","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442202","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of days that the","extracted_reporter_citation":"904 N.W.2d 251","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ony Kristina testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4442959 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell & Howe. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-18-2706. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4442959 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hat when she and Ronald were married on May 19, 1991, Ronald was employed as a firefighter by the city of Evanston. The assets listed as property acquired during their marriage included real property located in Niles, Illinois; vehicles; bank accounts; and \"Retirement plans.\" Ronald filed a pro se answer, which consisted of a single sentence: \"Yes, I agree to a divorce from Jodi A. Shulga.\" ¶4 On April 12, 2016, the circuit court entered an order dissolving the marriage. The court's order incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled \"Marital Property,\" provided in relevant part as fol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ald Shulga. The case ran its natural course and terminated with a judgment for dissolution of marriage. After Ronald's death, Jodi filed a third-party complaint against Mary Klebba-Shulga, alleging that Mary was unjustly enriched because she was receiving a pension as the surviving spouse of a disabled firefighter pursuant to section 4-114 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/4-114 (West 2016)). Jodi's complaint sought the imposition of a constructive trust. The Nos. 1-18-2028, 1-18-2706 cons. circuit court granted the relief sought in Jodi's amended complaint, and Mary now appeals. We affirm. ¶2 BACKG"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: arriage until the date of the divorce. The QILDRO further provided that, so long as it was in effect, Ronald was prohibited from choosing \"a form of payment of the retirement benefit that has the effect of diminishing the amount of the payment to which the alternate payee is entitled,\" unless that alternate payee consented in writing and the consent was notarized and filed with the Fund. Both the MSA and the QILDRO are silent with respect to the allocation of any firefighter death benefits. ¶7 On May 11, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund of Evanston (the Board) issued an administrative decisio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b0e284a-db3c-4f5c-a810-567270f950d3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4442959-4442959","title":"CourtListener opinion 4442959","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rty,\" provided in relevant part as follows: \"RONALD is currently a participant in the following accounts: a. City of Evanston Pension Plan *** JODI is awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of said accounts via a *** Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) ***. The remaining balance after the disbursement delineated herein shall be awarded to RONALD as his sole and exclusive property, free and clear of any claim or interest by JODI. ***. Jodi and Ronald shall take all necessary actions to satisfy the foregoing conditions and to implement all of the provisions of this -2- Nos. 1-18-2028,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4444011 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4444011 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r payment because Richard had been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income. The court also deferred resolving the vacation and sick pay issue. Also in June 2015, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \\assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: GORE, No. 73977 Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. FILE ELENI KILGORE, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. OCT 0 3 2019 BY ct Appeal and cross-appeal from orders resolving a motion to allocate omitted assets and modifying a divorce decree as it relates to PERS retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Betsy Allen and Betsy Allen, Las Vegas, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent. Page Law Office and Fred Page, Las Vegas, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant. BEFORE PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ. OPINION By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Eleni Kilgore's divorce. Specifically, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it concluded that Eleni was entitled to her community SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ICI -41-0 1 property share of Richard's pension benefits even though Richard had not yet retired, reduced this amount to judgment, and ordered Richard to pay Eleni a monthly amount it deemed fair. We also consider whether the district court erred when it concluded that Richard's vacation and sick pay were omitted from the divorce decree and thereafter divided them equally between Richard and Eleni."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2d7946a-269b-40a3-8c91-bf86826abb25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444011-4444011","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444011","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 15, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \\assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4444404 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.E.2d 1300. Docket: 2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4444404 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ng from the account. Because the marital portion of the account was stipulated and the value of the account was simply the balance, Jessica claims the trial court should have awarded her one-half of the marital portion to be allocated immediately through a qualified domestic relations order. Third, if deferring distribution until Tyler's retirement was proper, Jessica claims the trial court should have included language in its decision restraining Tyler from unilaterally withdrawing the funds or borrowing against the account. {¶ 27} Upon review, we agree that the trial court misstated the balance in Tyler's 401(k) account and that it abu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: thirties. That being so, we see no sound reason to defer Jessica's receipt of her half of the marital portion of the account until Tyler's future retirement. Although we are cognizant of the discretion a trial court enjoys in considering the disposition of retirement benefits, Hoyt at 180, we conclude that the trial court acted unreasonably here in not simply awarding Jessica one-half of the stipulated value of the marital portion, which was $11,849.75 as of December 31, 2017, plus or minus any gains or losses that occur prior to the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order promptly allocating Jessica's share to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t in the marital portion of Tyler's 401(K) account. We also see no sound reasoning process to support deferring distribution of Jessica's one- half interest to her until Tyler's retirement likely many years in the future. \"When a trial court decides that a pension or retirement asset shall be paid by deferred distribution, it has created a situation where the parties' affairs are not concluded. The non-employed spouse may be placed in a position where he or she must monitor the fund * * *.\" Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 182, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990). Thus, \"when circumstances permit, [trial courts] should strive"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1df25d8c-985c-420d-94d9-3122a32186da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4444404-4444404","title":"CourtListener opinion 4444404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): a 2005 Hornet travel trailer as his separate property. Fourth, she challenges the trial court's finding that a $30,000 down payment for the marital residence was Tyler's separate property. Fifth, she asserts that the trial court erred in allocating Tyler's 401(k) account. Sixth, she maintains that the trial court erred in refusing to require Tyler or the two self-storage companies to pay some of her attorney fees. Seventh, she contends the trial court erred in ordering shared parenting. Eighth, she claims the trial court erred in failing to award her child support. {¶ 3} The record reflects that the parties ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4445305 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-18-2706. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4445305 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hat when she and Ronald were married on May 19, 1991, Ronald was employed as a firefighter by the City of Evanston. The assets listed as property acquired during their marriage included real property located in Niles, Illinois; vehicles; bank accounts; and \"Retirement plans.\" Ronald filed a pro se answer, which consisted of a single sentence: \"Yes, I agree to a divorce from Jodi A. Shulga.\" ¶4 On April 12, 2016, the circuit court entered an order dissolving the marriage. The court's order incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled \"Marital Property,\" provided in relevant part as fol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ald Shulga. The case ran its natural course and terminated with a judgment for dissolution of marriage. After Ronald's death, Jodi filed a third-party complaint against Mary Klebba-Shulga, alleging that Mary was unjustly enriched because she was receiving a pension as the surviving spouse of a disabled firefighter pursuant to section 4-114 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/4-114 (West 2016)). Jodi's complaint sought the imposition of a constructive trust. The Nos. 1-18-2028, 1-18-2706 cons. circuit court granted the relief sought in Jodi's amended complaint, and Mary now appeals. We affirm. ¶2 BACKG"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: arriage until the date of the divorce. The QILDRO further provided that, so long as it was in effect, Ronald was prohibited from choosing \"a form of payment of the retirement benefit that has the effect of diminishing the amount of the payment to which the alternate payee is entitled,\" unless that alternate payee consented in writing and the consent was notarized and filed with the Fund. Both the MSA and the QILDRO are silent with respect to the allocation of any firefighter death benefits. ¶7 On May 11, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund of Evanston (Board) issued an administrative decision o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"946dbc35-6bf4-429f-9080-4fb898b560fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4445305-4445305","title":"CourtListener opinion 4445305","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-18-2706. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rty,\" provided in relevant part as follows: \"RONALD is currently a participant in the following accounts: a. City of Evanston Pension Plan *** JODI is awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of said accounts via a *** Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) ***. The remaining balance after the disbursement delineated herein shall be awarded to RONALD as his sole and exclusive property, free and clear of any claim or interest by JODI. ***. Jodi and Ronald shall take all necessary actions to satisfy the foregoing conditions and to implement all of the provisions of this -2- Nos. 1-18-2028,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4446813 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 208 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4446813 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: January 22, 2009. In that petition, Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to sign the QDROs she prepared, as required by the Order and the Amended Order.4 Petition to Enforce Order of Court, 1/22/2009. On May 1, 2009, the trial court entered a QDRO as an order of court (2009 QDRO). The 2009 QDRO, which was signed by Husband and Wife, provided that Wife's portion of the retirement benefit would be calculated ____________________________________________ 4 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A22026-19 Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993). In Berrington, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in a deferred distribution of a defined benefit pension, the spouse not participating may not be awarded any portion of the participant-spouse's retirement benefits which are based on post- separation salary increases, incentive awards or years of service. Any retirement benefits awarded to the non-participant spouse must be based only on the participant-spouse's salary at the date of separation. 633 A.2d at 594 (emphasis added).2 On January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature passed subsection (c) of secti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: BER 15, 2019 John William Getty (Husband) appeals from the order entered December 17, 2018, which denied his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. This case involves the application of an important1 change in Pennsylvania law with respect to how pension plans are valued in divorce cases. Specifically, on January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted legislation that overruled our Supreme Court's holding in Berrington v. ____________________________________________ 1 Among the amicus participants in Berrington, infra, were the following entities: the Pennsylvania Chapter of American Academy of M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97a8521b-7b1c-4b6e-949e-cca96f95c213","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4446813-4446813","title":"CourtListener opinion 4446813","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"208 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"633 A.2d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e employee spouse in the value of the pension.\" 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501 (comment to subsec. (c)). In other words, the pension was to be valued using the employee-spouse's salary as of the date of retirement, not as of the date of separation as in Berrington. The marital portion of the pension would be calculated by the use of a coverture fraction. See Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007). Moreover, on June 15, 2005, the legislature again amended subsection 3501(c) to provide that it was applicable to all proceedings pending on or after January 28, 2005. ____________________________________________ 2 The author of this opin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4448715 Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.W.2d 17. Docket: A-18-1121. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4448715 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: riod that the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") forthwith upon the entry of this Decree to effectuate this split. Both parties shall cooperate with each other as may be necessary to provide appropriate information for the entry of said QDRO. Following the entry of the decree, various discussions were had between Nancy's attorneys and Louis or his attorneys regarding preparation of the QDRO. L"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rney. This order explicitly recognized Nancy's right to receive a portion of benefits payable under the Civil Service Retirement System. The order was prepared in accordance with final regulations issued by the OPM. The order states that Louis is eligible for retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System based on employment with the U.S. government. The order assigned to Nancy 18.33 percent of Louis' gross monthly annuity (including any military benefits payable by the OPM) determined as of January 29, 2010. In early 2017, Nancy received a letter stating that she would begin receiving benefits August 1, 2016. Nanc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he decree recites that the parties had entered into an agreement relative to the issues of alimony, division of property, the payment of debts, and others matters set forth in the decree. A provision in the decree granted Nancy a portion of Louis's monthly VA pension. The decree states: VA PENSION: The Defendant receives a monthly pension from the VA, prorated for the period that the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e55d0cc-4d6a-4528-8963-2a12cfd3ea2b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4448715-4448715","title":"CourtListener opinion 4448715","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-18-1121","extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") forthwith upon the entry of this Decree to effectuate this split. Both parties shall cooperate with each other as may be necessary to provide appropriate information for the entry of said QDRO. Following the entry of the decree, various discussions were had between Nancy's attorneys and Louis or his attorneys regarding preparation of the QDRO. L"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4451230 Extracted reporter citation: 44 A.3d 27. Docket: 1877 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4451230 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ir economic issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce complaint. See Master's Report, 8/31/17, 5-6"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ties argue their economic issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce com"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: c issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce complaint. See Master's Report, 8/31/17, 5-6"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19d86f9f-f466-4d13-aadf-23b61fc54096","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451230-4451230","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451230","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1877 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 A.3d 27","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: vision at No(s): No. 2013-27844, BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J. FILED OCTOBER 29, 2019 In these consolidated appeals, Mark E. Poist (\"Husband\"), an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from the May 15, 2018 equitable distribution order and divorce decree that ended his marriage to Sara L. Poist (\"Wife\") and resolved all outstanding economic claims. Husband also purports to appeal two interlocutory rulings that occurred during June 2016 and February 2018, respectively, and a third post-divorce order in which the trial court denied Husband's motion to recuse. We quash the interlo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf903c3-a64e-41f5-9d10-263320622cd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4451544 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4451544 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf903c3-a64e-41f5-9d10-263320622cd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf903c3-a64e-41f5-9d10-263320622cd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OHNSON, Former Wife, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a \"Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage\" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf903c3-a64e-41f5-9d10-263320622cd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: unty. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a \"Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage\" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation/social security replacement plan. The approxim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adf903c3-a64e-41f5-9d10-263320622cd8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4451544-4451544","title":"CourtListener opinion 4451544","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rmer Wife, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order\" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a \"Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage\" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e6df2f-f6e0-444a-8666-bc595450880c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 S.W.3d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4452175 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of SUSAN JANE. Extracted reporter citation: 571 S.W.3d 688. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452175 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e6df2f-f6e0-444a-8666-bc595450880c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 S.W.3d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e6df2f-f6e0-444a-8666-bc595450880c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 S.W.3d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ial court's judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed (\"Husband\") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the \"legal separation judgment\"). 1 In accordance with that judgment, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations order on Octo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e6df2f-f6e0-444a-8666-bc595450880c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 S.W.3d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): T OF SCOTT COUNTY Honorable D. Blake Pearson AFFIRMED Susan Jane Freed (\"Wife\") appeals the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed (\"Husband\") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the \"legal sepa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e6df2f-f6e0-444a-8666-bc595450880c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452175-4452175","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"571 S.W.3d 688","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed (\"Husband\") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the \"legal separation judgment\"). 1 In accordance with that judgment, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations order on Octo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4452452 Extracted reporter citation: 630 N.E.2d 763. Docket: 2019CA00010. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452452 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of \"Lump Sum Property Division Payment\", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check for $10,000.00 on July 11, 2018, related to a reimbursement of earnest money for a potential pur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: name and one in joint form, with the notation that appellee had paid to appellant, on July 11, 2018, the sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of \"Lump Sum Property Division Payment\", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n appellee's name and one in joint form, with the notation that appellee had paid to appellant, on July 11, 2018, the sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of \"Lump Sum Property Division Payment\", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had eac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c49b637-a030-44be-95ff-4e1e53367215","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452452-4452452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452452","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019CA00010. This","extracted_reporter_citation":"630 N.E.2d 763","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of \"Lump Sum Property Division Payment\", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check for $10,000.00 on July 11, 2018, related to a reimbursement of earnest money for a potential purchase of a home in Texas. Finally, provisions we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51ec3e17-bb84-4583-9623-2a38fe708a44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452468","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4452468 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3315 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452468 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51ec3e17-bb84-4583-9623-2a38fe708a44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452468","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"51ec3e17-bb84-4583-9623-2a38fe708a44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4452468-4452468","title":"CourtListener opinion 4452468","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3315 EDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nter such an order after conducting a conference on the petition. Here, the trial court conducted a hearing on Father's petition. At the hearing, Mother testified that she did not directly receive the support payments for Jessica, but that, pursuant to a domestic relations order requested by Father, Jessica had been receiving the support checks directly -3- J-S30002-19 since 1998. The trial court took the matter under advisement and, following a review of the certified record, issued an order denying Father's petition. See Order, 10/22/18. Upon review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. Rather, it re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4454753 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Manor. Extracted reporter citation: 276 S.W.3d 138. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4454753 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: clarification order to be inconsistent with the final decree. See, e.g., Vanloh v. Vanloh, No. 03-08-00017-CV, 2008 WL 3984373, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (\"Contrary to [wife's] assertions, however, the clarification of the [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)] accurately reflects the property division as set out in the divorce decree and is consistent with the terms of the original QDRO.\"). c. Summary After reviewing the decree as a whole, we hold that the substitution of terms regarding how to tax Jeff's bonus payments constitutes a clarification, not a modification, and that such clarification e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the division the parties, and the trial court in its agreed decree, intended.\"); Seabron, 2013 WL 4685440, at *4 (holding that clarification of \"gross present and future military retirement\" did not alter the essential proportional division of the military retirement benefits); Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811, 819 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (holding that trial court's clarification order did not impermissibly modify division of property by requiring husband to pay taxes, penalties, and interest owed on wife's federal income tax obligation because money owed resulted from husband's actions); Zeolla, 15 S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . 17 See Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (stating that the decree as a whole and the circumstances surrounding its formation \"reveal an affirmative intent that [husband] not be awarded anything from the [401(k)] plan and that [wife] receive all of it\"). Similarly, there was no testimony at the enforcement hearing demonstrating an intent to award Jeff any portion of the specified bonus amounts. It would therefore be contrary to the decree to interpret the bonus provision as permitting Jeff to keep or to utilize any portion of the specified bonus amounts by with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6f484934-3bda-4c62-8add-8012f29b1ec3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4454753-4454753","title":"CourtListener opinion 4454753","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion order to be inconsistent with the final decree. See, e.g., Vanloh v. Vanloh, No. 03-08-00017-CV, 2008 WL 3984373, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (\"Contrary to [wife's] assertions, however, the clarification of the [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)] accurately reflects the property division as set out in the divorce decree and is consistent with the terms of the original QDRO.\"). c. Summary After reviewing the decree as a whole, we hold that the substitution of terms regarding how to tax Jeff's bonus payments constitutes a clarification, not a modification, and that such clarification e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cda3bfc8-908a-42fb-8faa-e115ef8a86c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480","title":"CourtListener opinion 4455480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4455480 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 180 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4455480 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cda3bfc8-908a-42fb-8faa-e115ef8a86c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480","title":"CourtListener opinion 4455480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cda3bfc8-908a-42fb-8faa-e115ef8a86c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480","title":"CourtListener opinion 4455480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The trial court thus concluded that Husband alone should bear responsibility for the taxes deducted as a result of the early liquidation of the accounts. Id. at 4, 12. The trial court properly considered the tax ramifications in assessing the value of the retirement accounts, and we decline Husband's invitation to overturn its well-supported findings and conclusions. -6- J-A24038-19 Husband further argues that the trial court's refusal to assign some shared responsibility for the taxes he paid is inequitable and fails to account for the fact that Husband's liquidation of the accounts was not voluntary and a result of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cda3bfc8-908a-42fb-8faa-e115ef8a86c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480","title":"CourtListener opinion 4455480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: responsible for all assessed taxes[.] 2. The learned trial court erred by utilizing the gross amount of the retirement and/or investment accounts for purposes of equitable distribution when [Husband] while under the specter of unmerited and unwarranted domestic relations orders and ____________________________________________ 2Husband filed his concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on January 31, 2019. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 15, 2019. -3- J-A24038-19 eventual imprisonment for purported contempt of said Orders was forced to liquidate certain retirement and/or investment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cda3bfc8-908a-42fb-8faa-e115ef8a86c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4455480-4455480","title":"CourtListener opinion 4455480","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"180 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: affidavit on March 26, 2015, stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d). Wife filed a counter-affidavit of non-opposition to divorce on April 14, 2015. Following a hearing, an equitable distribution master issued a report and recommendation on April 11, 2017. Both parties objected to the report and recommendation and requested a hearing de novo. The trial court conducted a de novo hearing on April 4, 2018. At the hearing, counsel agreed that the equitable distribution proceeding would be conducted on a \"case-stated basis\" on documentary exhibits a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f27b5a-56d0-43d1-b276-e0f0d509109d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496","title":"CourtListener opinion 4456496","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"327 S.W.3d 250","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4456496 Extracted reporter citation: 327 S.W.3d 250. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4456496 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f27b5a-56d0-43d1-b276-e0f0d509109d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496","title":"CourtListener opinion 4456496","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"327 S.W.3d 250","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f27b5a-56d0-43d1-b276-e0f0d509109d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496","title":"CourtListener opinion 4456496","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"327 S.W.3d 250","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ousal property agreements involuntarily as a result of Wright's \"duress, threats, and/or coercion\" and declared the three agreements void and unenforceable. On the same day that the trial court signed the declaratory judgment, the trial court also signed a qualified domestic relations order and an order 3 for interim attorney's fees that was later modified. Wright filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law at her request on March 5, 2019 and March 25, 2019. Wright's notice of appeal followed. ISSUES In six issues on appeal, Wright contends that the trial court abused its d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0f27b5a-56d0-43d1-b276-e0f0d509109d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4456496-4456496","title":"CourtListener opinion 4456496","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"327 S.W.3d 250","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: erty agreements involuntarily as a result of Wright's \"duress, threats, and/or coercion\" and declared the three agreements void and unenforceable. On the same day that the trial court signed the declaratory judgment, the trial court also signed a qualified domestic relations order and an order 3 for interim attorney's fees that was later modified. Wright filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law at her request on March 5, 2019 and March 25, 2019. Wright's notice of appeal followed. ISSUES In six issues on appeal, Wright contends that the trial court abused its d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4458275 Extracted reporter citation: 440 U.S. 48. Docket: 28243 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4458275 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: terest in the subject property. That interest vested ̶ that is, became fixed ̶ at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. {¶ 19} The analysis set forth in the bankruptcy court's opinion focused on whether the $50 weekly payments were dischargeable under the provisions of 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which held that John Lelak's obligation to pay Siddall retirements benefits was discharged in bankruptcy, that he was not in contempt for failing to give Siddall a 10-day notice prior to withdrawing funds from his retirement account, and that Siddall was not entitled to attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} In 1983, Lelak and Siddall divorced after 15 years of marriage. Of relevance hereto, the \"final decree and judgment of divorce\", issued on January 31, 1983, stated: As to the retiremen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: interests are created and defined by state law and bankruptcy courts do not disturb them unless some federal interest requires a different result.\" Id., citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979). {¶ 17} In Ohio, pension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of a marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action. Graham v. Graham, 2d Dist. Greene No. 92-CA-114, 1993 WL 350038, *4, citing Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (1990). Further, Ohio courts have held that \"[o]nce the division of property is fixed by"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf4089da-bf79-413b-a38a-a66f9a19c3ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4458275-4458275","title":"CourtListener opinion 4458275","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28243 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"440 U.S. 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the subject property. That interest vested ̶ that is, became fixed ̶ at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. {¶ 19} The analysis set forth in the bankruptcy court's opinion focused on whether the $50 weekly payments were dischargeable under the provisions of 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4459221 Extracted reporter citation: 679 A.2d 1266. Docket: 442 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4459221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Wife] and [Husband's] counsel appeared at the hearing; [Husband] did not appear.1 The trial court proceeded and concluded that [Husband] was not in contempt of the equitable distribution order because the April 26, 2017 order required [Wife] to draft the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")] for the Northrup Grumman Savings Plan. Thereafter, [Wife] drafted a QDRO and presented it to the trial court for approval. On August 21, 2018, the trial court approved the QDRO. 1 [Husband], who lives in the state of California, has failed to appear at other equitable distribution enforcement hearings. As a result, the trial court issued ben"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lt, the trial court issued bench warrants against [him] on May 11, 2018 and July 9, 2018. The warrants remain outstanding. Further, the trial court found [Husband] in contempt for failing to comply with equitable distribution orders regarding his military pension . . . as well as his failure to pay [Wife's] counsel fees from the equitable distribution order and her $15,035.18 share of the [parties'] G-Force Leadership, L.L.C. asset. On October 26, 2018, [Wife] then filed a second rule to show cause why [Husband] should not be held in contempt [of] the court[']s April 26, 2017 order of equitable distribution."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ppeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, holding him in contempt of court for failure to comply with the court's equitable distribution orders and enjoining him from disposing of any portion of his American Airlines 401(k) plan for pilots. Upon careful review, we affirm. The trial court set forth the facts of this matter as follows: This divorce has such a long, agonizing, and tortured history . . . with which the Superior Court is familiar. . . . Importantly, the Superior Court [affirmed] the trial court's . . . equitable distribution order. [Husband] filed a petitio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9f8c3061-c62b-470a-9109-cb5f0813ed47","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4459221-4459221","title":"CourtListener opinion 4459221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"442 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"679 A.2d 1266","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: y, the plan administrator stated, \"[a]ccording to our records, the Participant was eligible to be in the Plan, but our records indicate that there are no assets in the account to segregate. Therefore, as there are no assets in the account to assign to the Alternate Payee, there will be no review of this order, and our file on this matter is considered closed.\" As a consequence, the trial court issued an order on December 6, 2018 finding [Husband] in contempt for depleting the mar[ital] asset because a QDRO could not issue against the account. Further, the trial court directed the Washington County Prothonotary to ente"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4461567 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tulleners FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Judith Tulleners and Andre Tulleners. Extracted reporter citation: 50 P.3d 298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4461567 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Instead, in a memorandum opinion, the court awarded the assets in the following manner: Community property Separate property Andre $718,172 plus a QDRO1 $20,000 addressing the community interest in Judith's pension payments Judith $301,742, plus a QDRO $251,730 plus the 67.6 addressing the community percent separate property property interest in her pension interest in her pension payments payments See Report of Proceedings (RP)2 at 293. 1 Qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(3)(A). 2 The report of proceedings contains a pagination error. The pages numbered 167 through 17"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: led for divorce in May 2016, she and Andre were both in their early 70s and retired. Both were living on social security and retirement assets. At the divorce trial, Judith was able to provide a calculation from the administrator of her public employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterize"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: were both in their early 70s and retired. Both were living on social security and retirement assets. At the divorce trial, Judith was able to provide a calculation from the administrator of her public employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterized it as commingled and, therefore,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ba4e36c-a0c3-4196-9717-19c66ec1c328","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461567-4461567","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461567","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"50 P.3d 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): c employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterized it as commingled and, therefore, community property. Andre had worked for 32 years for Williams Companies, which provided a pension benefit and later a 401(k) plan. Contributions were made to both during the 8½ years of his marriage preceding his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9949b0d9-4eb8-4d3f-b871-9a2d61eddf39","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4461826 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4461826 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9949b0d9-4eb8-4d3f-b871-9a2d61eddf39","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9949b0d9-4eb8-4d3f-b871-9a2d61eddf39","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: amus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable John R. Milliard, presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, to vacate his first amended qualified domestic relations order signed October 31, 2019. Relator has also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to issue an injunction against the plan administrator pending our decision on the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9949b0d9-4eb8-4d3f-b871-9a2d61eddf39","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4461826-4461826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4461826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"148 S.W.3d 124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable John R. Milliard, presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, to vacate his first amended qualified domestic relations order signed October 31, 2019. Relator has also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to issue an injunction against the plan administrator pending our decision on the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4462756 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4462756 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rred by assigning him one hundred percent of the marital debt, awarding wife \"over eighty-five percent of\" the marital property, evenly dividing the marital portion of the parties' retirement accounts, and ordering him to bear the costs of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for dividing the retirement account funds that he had transferred during the pendency of the suit. The trial court properly considered the statutory factors in dividing the parties' assets and debts, and this Court affirms. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that fairness required that wife not be burdened by a debt"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eper County. In four assignments of error, he claims that the trial court erred by assigning him one hundred percent of the marital debt, awarding wife \"over eighty-five percent of\" the marital property, evenly dividing the marital portion of the parties' retirement accounts, and ordering him to bear the costs of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for dividing the retirement account funds that he had transferred during the pendency of the suit. The trial court properly considered the statutory factors in dividing the parties' assets and debts, and this Court affirms. The trial court did not abu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it and his cigar, gun, pocketknife, and straight razor collections worth approximately $4000. The parties had several retirement accounts. Wife had a single defined contribution account worth approximately $65,000. Husband had a Virginia Retirement System pension that was in pay status—because husband had already retired—that was paying $3200 per month. He also had two defined contribution plans worth approximately $120,000. While the case was pending, husband transferred the funds from his defined contribution plans to his investment -3- accounts. The trial court awarded both parties fifty percent of the mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43b3e121-184f-488d-bac0-21a3126120f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4462756-4462756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4462756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tely $5400. The trial court also awarded husband the parties' joint checking account with $4400 in it and his cigar, gun, pocketknife, and straight razor collections worth approximately $4000. The parties had several retirement accounts. Wife had a single defined contribution account worth approximately $65,000. Husband had a Virginia Retirement System pension that was in pay status—because husband had already retired—that was paying $3200 per month. He also had two defined contribution plans worth approximately $120,000. While the case was pending, husband transferred the funds from his defined contribution plans to his inv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4464840 Docket: for. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4464840 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Reserve Bank. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also divided husband's VCU pension and 403(B) plan as follows: The marital share of [husband's] VCU pension and his 403[(B)] plan shall be divided equally with a [fifty] percent share to each party wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 403(B) plan. Wife maintained a thrift savings plan and a pension plan with her employer, the Federal Reserve Bank. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: F CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Lynn S. Brice, Judge Reginald M. Barley for appellant. Jeremiah M. Yourth (Owens & Owens PLC, on brief), for appellee. Hampton H. Jackson, Jr. (\"husband\") appeals a March 15, 2019 Approved Domestic Relations Order (\"ADRO\") for a pension plan administered by the Virginia Retirement System (\"VRS\"), following his divorce from Crystal N. Jackson (\"wife\"). He contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the ADRO. He also asserts wife did not prove that he had an interest in VRS. Finally, he argues that the court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay wife's attorney's fees"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9f73cf1-2e38-4895-b9f5-4ce9626e9948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4464840-4464840","title":"CourtListener opinion 4464840","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nk. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also divided husband's VCU pension and 403(B) plan as follows: The marital share of [husband's] VCU pension and his 403[(B)] plan shall be divided equally with a [fifty] percent share to each party wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4468162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 19CA011472 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4468162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rs. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"that awards one-half of the entire portion of his social security benefits to [Wife] * * * offset by [Wife's] social security benefits.\" The United States Code provides that Social Security benefits \"shall not * * * be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process * * *.\" 42 U.S.C. 407(a). In light of that language, the Oh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pousal support.\" But that is very point that Husband's argument is making. The trial court framed most of its analysis in terms of spousal support. Indeed, under R.C. 3105.18(C), the trial court was obligated to consider Husband's present payments from the retirement accounts, which are in payout status, as income for purposes of determining his support obligation. At the end of the day, however, it appears that Husband is correct: the trial court did not award support to wife based on this analysis, but awarded her an ownership interest in husband's separate property. This amounted to a property division, not spousal suppo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n about one of his bank accounts. It, therefore, did not require Wife to pay Husband for his one-half interest in the marital home. For spousal support, instead of requiring Husband to make payments to Wife, it awarded her one-half of Husband's pre-marital pension benefits. It also ordered Husband to pay all of Wife's attorney fees. Husband has appealed, assigning three errors. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic rel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5dd769f-a50f-4d61-8e88-89d7c1ec720c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4468162-4468162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4468162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19CA011472 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aled, assigning three errors. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) \"that awards one-half of the entire portion of his social security benefits to [Wife] * * * offset by [Wife's] social security benefits.\" The United States Code provides that Social Security benefits \"shall not * * * be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process * * *.\" 42 U.S.C. 407(a). In light of that language,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4470045 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moody. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4470045 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because \"government plans\" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several types of retirement benefits paid by the OPM. HANDBOOK at 5. The court determines the percent or fraction of the employee's annuity that the former spouse shall receive. 2 52455-4-II THE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: owed to federal employees and their former spouses based entirely on orders from state courts. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MGMT., RI 38-116, A HANDBOOK FOR ATTORNEYS ON COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because \"government plans\" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he former spouse shall receive. 2 52455-4-II THE COURT: What if I sign an order directing them to [send an accounting]? [John]: I don't think so. You're a state judge. THE COURT: So they just don't care, but they'll take my state order and divide the pension— [John]: Right. THE COURT: —pursuant to [Employee Income Security Act] ERISA? [Glenna]: What's ERISA? THE COURT: It's an Employment Division allowance that the federal government will recognize state orders. It elevates our state orders to a federal level in order to be able to divide pensions. [John]: I don't know if they follow ERISA. THE COURT: T"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ff48c297-6ea7-4349-9c16-a185df2fd089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4470045-4470045","title":"CourtListener opinion 4470045","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: PERSONNEL MGMT., RI 38-116, A HANDBOOK FOR ATTORNEYS ON COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because \"government plans\" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several types of retirement benefits paid by the OPM. HANDBOOK at 5. The court determines the percent or fraction"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4486810 Extracted reporter citation: 465 S.W.3d 217. Docket: 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4486810 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ———— PAMELA K. PAREDEZ, Appellant V. DARREN J. HUSSEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for a defined contribution plan owned by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until the date Hussey retires. We affirm. Background After almost thirteen years of marriage, Hussey and Paredez divorced on March 20, 1995. Although they have now been divorced for almost 25 years, Hussey and Paredez have spent the past several years in litigation over Paredez's claim that the parties' divorce decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: dez: Fifty (50%) percent of any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's past, present, or future employment, including without limitation, the Respondent's Retirement 2 Fund, Provident Fund, and SPIF Fund with Shell Oil Company per Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; however, exclu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ce3d297-929a-494f-9cd9-437897697816","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4486810-4486810","title":"CourtListener opinion 4486810","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez","extracted_reporter_citation":"465 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . HUSSEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for a defined contribution plan owned by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until the date Hussey retires. We affi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8089ddf9-7549-4800-87ab-0b68396a5e45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521","title":"CourtListener opinion 4493521","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4493521 Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4493521 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8089ddf9-7549-4800-87ab-0b68396a5e45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521","title":"CourtListener opinion 4493521","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8089ddf9-7549-4800-87ab-0b68396a5e45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521","title":"CourtListener opinion 4493521","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or lack of jurisdiction because of an untimely notice of appeal. On January 2, 2020, appellant filed a response stating he is seeking a restricted appeal. A review of the clerk's record reflects appellant filed his notice of appeal within six months after the Qualified Domestic Relations order was signed, did not participate in the underlying proceeding, and did not file a postjudgment motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7), 26.1(c). We therefore retain this appeal on this court's docket. On December 5, 2019, appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Cost in this court, and it does not appear that appellant filed the st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8089ddf9-7549-4800-87ab-0b68396a5e45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4493521-4493521","title":"CourtListener opinion 4493521","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: jurisdiction because of an untimely notice of appeal. On January 2, 2020, appellant filed a response stating he is seeking a restricted appeal. A review of the clerk's record reflects appellant filed his notice of appeal within six months after the Qualified Domestic Relations order was signed, did not participate in the underlying proceeding, and did not file a postjudgment motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7), 26.1(c). We therefore retain this appeal on this court's docket. On December 5, 2019, appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Cost in this court, and it does not appear that appellant filed the st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a8da8a9-523d-4c0e-8fe9-24aa1764af32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501793","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1284 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4501793 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1284 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4501793 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a8da8a9-523d-4c0e-8fe9-24aa1764af32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501793","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1284 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a8da8a9-523d-4c0e-8fe9-24aa1764af32","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501793-4501793","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501793","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1284 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: filing of the petition, but the record supports the trial court's finding that these obstacles emerged only after years of Father's virtual non-participation in the care and custody of Child. Id. at 17-23, 63-64. Further, even though Father complied with a domestic relations order to pay child support to Mother, payment of support in absence of a parent-child relationship or emotional bond is insufficient to establish that Father performed his parental duties. Id. at 27; N.T. 9/11/18 at 107-08; Shrives, supra. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that Father failed to perform his parental duties for at least six mon"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4501795 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 352 WDA 2019 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4501795 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ould result in Husband incurring taxes upon withdrawal. The court also considered the fact that the assets awarded to Wife, contrary to Husband's assertion, were not \"cash assets.\" Appellant Husband's Brief, at 13. The marital estate consisted primarily of retirement accounts and real property. The marital home and vacation home were both awarded to Wife, and she will incur substantial taxes and expenses if the properties are sold in -9- J-A26028-19 order to generate cash. We find no error or abuse of discretion. See Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017). In his third issue, Husband argues the court erred in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): o increase her sole and separate estate throughout her future employment. Wife is 51 and Husband is 56. The [m]aster is going to be awarding alimony to Husband for a 4[-]year period so that when he reaches age 60 he will be able to draw down on the IRA or 401(k) funds he will be receiving in equitable distribution without penalty. Hopefully he will have improved his earnings by working full time. Plus, when the alimony ends, he will continue receiving child support for [A.G.] and [J.G] until they graduate from [h]igh [s]chool. While the [m]aster is mindful that Wife will be solely responsible for children's c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to the following factors in support of its decision to reduce Husband's award: (1) the master's analysis presumed, in error, that Husband would incur a penalty if he withdrew money from the funds he would receive in equitable distribution via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (2) Husband chose to be unemployed or under- employed for a significant part of the parties' marriage, which the master had acknowledged. The trial court also noted Husband had received nearly $100,000 in APL as of the time of trial, over $85,000 from two years' worth of Wife's severance payments from the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, and would c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8090ddec-1279-4c59-9e16-509c52e9bd4e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4501795-4501795","title":"CourtListener opinion 4501795","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"352 WDA 2019 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: y market account.1 The parties married in 1998 and separated in 2015. They have three minor children and one adult child. Since the parties separated, they have engaged in extensive litigation over various issues, including custody, support, alimony and equitable distribution. Following a hearing, the master issued a report and recommendation, dated April 17, 2018. The master found that Wife, age 51, an attorney for U.S. Steel, has been fully employed throughout the marriage and has been the primary wage earner during the marriage. Husband, who is 56, has an associate's degree in management information systems; he held var"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4502558 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1457 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4502558 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: .: FILED JANUARY 29, 2020 Appellant, Earl A. Swartz (\"Husband\"), and Cross-Appellant, Brenda L. Swartz (\"Wife\"), appeal from the order entered in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part and denied in part Husband's motion to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and J-S02029-20 J-S02030-20 procedural history of this case. Thus, we have no reason to restate them.1 At No. 1457 MDA 2019, Husband raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pinion. Order affirmed. Judge Musmanno joins this memorandum. President Judge Emeritus Bender concurs in the result Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 01/29/2020 ____________________________________________ defined benefit retirement plan being distributed by means of deferred distribution, defined benefit plan shall be allocated between its marital and non-marital portions solely by use of coverture fraction). \"Thus, the non- employee spouse is permitted to enjoy increases in value occasioned by continued employment of the worker.\" Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 102, 938 A.2d 246, 259 (2007) ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF [HUSBAND'S] SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING [WIFE]'S PRO RATA SHARE OF [HUSBAND'S FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (\"FERS\")] PENSION WHEN THE PARTIES' MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SILENT AS TO ANY SUCH ADJUSTMENTS? (Husband's Brief at 1). At No. 1488 MDA 2019, Wife raises the following issue for our review: DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR BY GRANTING HUSBAND'S MOTION TO AMEND [THE QDRO] FILED IN EXCESS OF FIVE (5) YEARS FOLLOWING THE ENTRY OF THE [QDRO], THEREBY VIOLATING THE VALI"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d90cb4e7-8d96-4b1a-aaaf-f062a76a081e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502558-4502558","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502558","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1457 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ANUARY 29, 2020 Appellant, Earl A. Swartz (\"Husband\"), and Cross-Appellant, Brenda L. Swartz (\"Wife\"), appeal from the order entered in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part and denied in part Husband's motion to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and J-S02029-20 J-S02030-20 procedural history of this case. Thus, we have no reason to restate them.1 At No. 1457 MDA 2019, Husband raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b77f8c17-63d8-471d-a317-c3397a2692a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502837","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00968-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"97 S.W.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4502837 Extracted reporter citation: 97 S.W.3d 179. Docket: 05-18-00968-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4502837 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b77f8c17-63d8-471d-a317-c3397a2692a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502837","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00968-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"97 S.W.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b77f8c17-63d8-471d-a317-c3397a2692a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4502837-4502837","title":"CourtListener opinion 4502837","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-18-00968-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"97 S.W.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (iii) because of \"[Mother's] lack of clarity in her pleadings, [Mother's] desire to share [Father's] personal financial information with parties not involved in the case, and [Mother's] desire to divest [Father] of his separate property through two sets of QDRO fees.\" Father provides no legal authority or analysis to demonstrate how any of the foregoing establish that the court abused its discretion in making the attorney's fees award. See TEX. R. APP. –17– P. 33.1; see also Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 21 (Tex. 2002) (attorney's fees award within sound discretion of trial court). Moreover, because Father"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4504238 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4504238 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: usal support and for other relief. The motion sought a modification of spousal support due to an injury that left wife partially disabled. The motion also alleged that husband was refusing to provide wife the necessary information to allow her to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to divide husband's pension in accordance with the Agreement. It contended that husband had begun drawing $2,700 per month from his pension, but none of those funds were being distributed to wife as required under the Agreement. On May 6, 2015, wife filed a petition for rule to show cause. Wife contended that husband was in arrears on his spo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: paration and property settlement agreement (the \"Agreement\") dated August 23, 2005. The Agreement provided that wife would receive one-half the marital share of husband's pension: Husband is an employee of ABC, Inc. Husband will be eligible for monthly retirement benefits under the ABC, Inc. pension plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. based upon employment with ABC, Inc. The parties agree that a court of competent jurisdiction shall enter an order which directs the plan providers of the ABC, Inc. pension to pay directly to Wife such amount as is equal to one-half (½) of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y A. Saffer; Surovell Isaacs & Levy, PLC, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Ronald P. Ferry (\"husband\") appeals from the trial court's order that, in relevant part, ordered him to pay Sandra M. Beard (\"wife\") her marital share of his pension payments, awarded wife attorney's fees, and denied husband's request for attorney's fees. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife were divorced on August 26, 2005. The issue of spousal support was submitted to the trial court, which awarded wife $650 per month for ten years. The final decree also incorporate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cffe04e6-7de4-43f4-8b56-331cdc608320","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504238-4504238","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504238","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt and for other relief. The motion sought a modification of spousal support due to an injury that left wife partially disabled. The motion also alleged that husband was refusing to provide wife the necessary information to allow her to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to divide husband's pension in accordance with the Agreement. It contended that husband had begun drawing $2,700 per month from his pension, but none of those funds were being distributed to wife as required under the Agreement. On May 6, 2015, wife filed a petition for rule to show cause. Wife contended that husband was in arrears on his spo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4504752 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACOB R. BROWN AND ABBY S. BROWN Upon the Petition of JACOB R. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 19-0705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4504752 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ree overnights every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000.00 in transitional spousal support per month for five ye"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion and an award of spousal support is appropriate. But we find the district court's award inadequate. We modify the decree to award Abby spousal support in the amount of $650.00 per month for three years from the time of the entry of the decree. 15 E. Retirement Benefits Finally, Abby challenges the award of a portion of her pre- and post- retirement death benefits to Jake as inequitable. During trial, Jake testified that he and Abby had agreed to divide her IPERS account by using a QDRO and he submitted to the court his proposed language, which included listing him as \"surviving spouse for pre-retirement benefits as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ion, the court awarded Jake three overnights every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0201e3-6123-43fe-a007-c0f3ffe2c7db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4504752-4504752","title":"CourtListener opinion 4504752","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0705","extracted_reporter_citation":"737 N.W.2d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ghts every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000.00 in transitional spousal support per month for five ye"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4505692 Extracted reporter citation: 573 U.S. 122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4505692 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: g jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), this court affirms. I. Sieloff represented Lerbakken in his dissolution in Minnesota. The court's decree awarded Lerbakken all of his ex-wife's IRA and half of her 401(k). The court ordered Lerbakken to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Lerbakken refused, which leaves him with only a domestic relations order. Two months after the decree, the court ordered an attorney's lien against Lerbakken for Sieloff's legal services. The court expressly permitted Sieloff to recover the unpaid fees from Lerbakken's interests in his ex-wife's IRA and 401(k). The unpaid fees exceed the total of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Circuit ____________ Submitted: November 14, 2019 Filed: February 7, 2020 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. A state court awarded Brian A. Lerbakken part of his ex-wife's Individual Retirement Account and her 401(k) in a dissolution decree. Lerbakken filed for bankruptcy, claiming that his interests in the IRA and 401(k) are exempt as \"retirement funds.\" Sieloff & Associates, P.A., a creditor, objected to the exemptions. The bankruptcy court disallowed them, ruling that Lerbakken's interests in the IRA and 401(k) are not retirement funds. In re Lerbakken"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s for the 401(k),4 Lerbakken did not have a QDRO on January 23, 2018. He cannot access his interest in the account without a QDRO. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), (3)(A). See also 26 U.S.C. §§ 72(t)(2)(C), 414(p)(1)(A), 401(a)(13)(A)- (B). \"The QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that an alternate payee [what Lerbakken would be] has no interest in the plans until [he] obtains a QDRO, they merely prevent [him] from enforcing [his] interest until the QDRO is obtained.\" See 3 Because Lerbakken's conditional interest in the IRA is not \"retirement funds,\" this court need not address the \"covered account\" requirement. Se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd69ce2-59f3-45f8-b61e-41c477cd3452","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4505692-4505692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4505692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 U.S. 122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): itted: November 14, 2019 Filed: February 7, 2020 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. A state court awarded Brian A. Lerbakken part of his ex-wife's Individual Retirement Account and her 401(k) in a dissolution decree. Lerbakken filed for bankruptcy, claiming that his interests in the IRA and 401(k) are exempt as \"retirement funds.\" Sieloff & Associates, P.A., a creditor, objected to the exemptions. The bankruptcy court disallowed them, ruling that Lerbakken's interests in the IRA and 401(k) are not retirement funds. In re Lerbakken, Order, BKY 18"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4506340 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: A-19-343. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4506340 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rier's name had appeared had been closed. Higgins also had a 401K account through TD Ameritrade established prior to the marriage, which he asked the court to award to him. Higgins did not provide any other testimony or any documentation with respect to this retirement account, but according to Currier, Higgins was putting a total of $1,500 per month into two different 401K accounts, which Currier felt was \"money that could have been put towards school and the investment of educating [her] and allowing [her] to get a job and contribute to the household.\" The district court received an exhibit containing pay statements for Higgins"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and that between May 20, 2016, and July 31, 2017, Higgins deposited $21,000. The court awarded Currier $10,500, which is half of that amount. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-366(8) (Reissue 2016), the general rule is that amounts added to and interest accrued on pension or retirement accounts which have been earned during the marriage are part of the marital estate, but contributions before marriage or after dissolution are not assets of the marital estate. Stanosheck v. Jeanette, 294 Neb. 138, 881 N.W.2d 599 (2016). Investment earnings accrued during the marriage on the nonmarital portion of a retirement account may be cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ermination that all of the funds in that account should be awarded to [him] since it was all accumulated on [a] premarital asset.\" He indicated that the only other TD Ameritrade account on which Currier's name had appeared had been closed. Higgins also had a 401K account through TD Ameritrade established prior to the marriage, which he asked the court to award to him. Higgins did not provide any other testimony or any documentation with respect to this retirement account, but according to Currier, Higgins was putting a total of $1,500 per month into two different 401K accounts, which Currier felt was \"money that cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"228f1e50-0ef5-4d19-b74a-3a85ce65146d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4506340-4506340","title":"CourtListener opinion 4506340","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-343","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y 20, 2016, to July 31, 2017, during which time Higgins deposited $21,000 into the account. The court awarded Currier $10,500, representing half of the amount deposited during the parties' marriage and ordered that it be transferred to her through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court awarded the parties any other retirement plans that either might have. The court awarded Currier $303, half of the balance in the U.S. Bank account at the time the complaint was filed. The court also awarded her $3,570, a sum representing \"50% of the [2016 income tax] refund that accumulated from May 20, 2016 to December 31, 2016.\" The court also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4507314 Extracted reporter citation: 217 A.3d 301. Docket: 949 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4507314 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2020 James A. Lemmo (Husband) appeals from the order entered in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his petition for special relief, which sought modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO. For the reasons below, we affirm. Husband and Cindy D. Lemmo (Wife) were married on April 16, 1988, and separated on July 28, 2006. A divorce decree was entered on May 11, 2009. A Divorce Master considered the equitable division of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: .B. Subsequently, on October 4, 2010, the parties stipulated to a QDRO drafted by Wife, which contained the following language: 7. (a) The marital property component of [Wife's] retirement benefit equals the Coverture Fraction[2] multiplied by [Wife's] retirement benefit on the effective date of the parties [sic] separation, July 28, 2006. (b) The Coverture Fraction is a fraction with a value less than or equal to one. The numerator is the amount of [Wife's] service, as defined by SERS, for the period of time from April 16, 1988 (date 2A \"coverture fraction\" is the method used to \"calculate the marital portion of a pe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed the equitable division of the parties' * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under [a pension] plan.\" Getty v. Getty, 2019 WL 5157011, 208 EDA 2019, 4 n.4 (Pa. Super. Oct. 15, 2019) (citation omitted). J-S03025-20 marital property, including both Husband's and Wife's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) benefits, and filed a report and recommendation on May 20, 2010. Thereafter, on June 10, 2010, the trial court entered an order based on t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1742894f-21a8-40b3-b4e9-515bdd9525fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507314-4507314","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507314","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"949 WDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 301","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: LEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2020 James A. Lemmo (Husband) appeals from the order entered in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his petition for special relief, which sought modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO. For the reasons below, we affirm. Husband and Cindy D. Lemmo (Wife) were married on April 16, 1988, and separated on July 28, 2006. A divorce decree was entered on May 11, 2009. A Divorce Master considered the equitable division of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4507624 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 346520 Midland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4507624 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e providing that plaintiff would receive 50% of defendant's pension as of November 27, 2016, through an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO). The trial court also ordered that defendant receive 50% of plaintiff's pension as of November 27, 2016, through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). II. ANALYSIS Defendant argues that the trial court clearly erred by refusing to tailor its property division determination to defendant's testimony that he anticipated retiring at age 48. By extension, defendant also argues that the trial court's decision to distribute the pensions according to the 50/50 method rather than the offset method was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: plans, which are both marital assets, should be applied evenly to the parties. Defendant's argument that he should be able to retire at 48 and receive a full pension at the same time is akin to arguing that he should be entitled to all of the benefits of his retirement plan and plaintiff should be entitled to none. Defendant does not wish to be bound by the restrictions contained in plaintiff's plan, yet, defendant does not contest that both plans are marital assets that should be distributed equally. Moreover, the corollary of defendant's contention that it would be inequitable for him to have to wait 12 years to collect his"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant were married for more than 19 years before filing for divorce in 2016. The parties reached a settlement agreement to all aspects of their divorce, apart from \"the manner and method\" for distributing plaintiff's pension with Midland County and defendant's pension with Midland Public Schools. During a pro confesso hearing, defendant called a certified public accountant, Amy Hebert, to testify. Hebert testified that there were two primary differences between the parties' pension plans. First, defendant's plan, unlike plaintiff's plan, included a 3% cost-of-living adjustment,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da41b0a6-51ae-41ad-bc10-9c696e39b68b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4507624-4507624","title":"CourtListener opinion 4507624","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346520 Midland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ween the parties' pension plans. First, defendant's plan, unlike plaintiff's plan, included a 3% cost-of-living adjustment, which meant that defendant's monthly pension amount would gradually increase each year. Second, defendant's plan permitted plaintiff as alternate payee to receive benefits before defendant retired. However, defendant could not receive pension benefits under plaintiff's plan until she retired. Plaintiff is eligible to retire when she is 60 years old, and defendant is eligible to retire when he is 48 years old. Both parties were 45 years old at the time of the hearing. Hebert stated that if defendant chose t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4508136 Extracted reporter citation: 7 N.E.3d 327. Docket: 19A-DC-827 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4508136 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the Chase account. Husband further testified that he did not have additional cash in a bank account or at his house and that he had not transferred cash or assets to anyone. Husband asked the trial court to issue a qualified domestic relations order \"QDRO\" to award Wife the portion of his PSP to which she was entitled. [12] Regarding his gross weekly wage for child support purposes, Husband testified that he was a third shift team leader at GM and that he had earned overtime Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-827 | February 18, 2020 Page 6 of 16 pay at GM in the past. However, Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 's PSP through a QDRO was not specific enough. As the sole authority in support of her argument, Wife directs us to Evans v. Evans, 946 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). There, the trial court ordered the entry of a QDRO against the husband's employment pension plan to \"adequately compensate [the wife] for her 50% interest in the net marital assets of the parties.\" Id. at 1202. After the husband's employer twice rejected proposed QDROs because they violated ERISA and the terms of the husband's pension plan, the trial court issued an order implementing an alternate property distribution. This Court affirm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: of a QDRO against the husband's employment pension plan to \"adequately compensate [the wife] for her 50% interest in the net marital assets of the parties.\" Id. at 1202. After the husband's employer twice rejected proposed QDROs because they violated ERISA and the terms of the husband's pension plan, the trial court issued an order implementing an alternate property distribution. This Court affirmed the trial court's order as a clarification of its prior order, not an alteration, where the original plan was legally impossible to implement. [32] However, the facts in this case are distinguishable from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b356ac24-c1e6-42c3-a27d-5ce7d59ca002","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4508136-4508136","title":"CourtListener opinion 4508136","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-827 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"7 N.E.3d 327","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g time credit he was awarded in the provisional order; and (3) valued Husband's GM PSP at $52,925. The dissolution order also awarded Wife 49% of the marital couverture value of Husband's PSP and ordered the division of Husband's PSP through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by Husband's counsel. Lastly, the trial court found that the presumption favoring an equal division of the marital estate was just and reasonable. The following month, Wife filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied in part.2 Wife now appeals the denial. Decision [19] Wife appeals the trial court's denial of her motion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4511120 Extracted case name: DORIS MPOYI v. RICHARD T. MPOYI. Extracted reporter citation: 363 S.W.3d 479. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511120 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sion DORIS MPOYI v. RICHARD T. MPOYI Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County No. 09-0934DR J. Mark Rogers, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2018-01816-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ Ex-Husband appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which was entered several years after the final decree of divorce. Ex-Husband complains that the QDRO grants his ex-wife benefits that she was not entitled to under the final decree of divorce. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., delivere"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on behalf of the appellee, Doris Mpoyi. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2009, Doris Mpoyi filed for divorce from Richard T. Mpoyi. In May 2010, the chancery court entered a final decree of divorce. Among other things, the decree classified and divided the parties' retirement accounts. With respect to Dr. Mpoyi's retirement accounts, the decree provided as follows: The Husband shall receive his 401(k) retirement through Great-West Retirement Services with an approximate balance in the amount of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Eight and 23/100 Dollars ($8,348.23). The 1 Under the rules of this Court, as a memorandum opinion, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n one day (October 11, 2018), my retirement revenues have been reduced by $56,559.47. I strongly believe that this needs to be corrected. A QDRO allows an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a private pension plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (2018); see also Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 543 n.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); Custer v. Custer, 776 S.W.2d 92, 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). It is used to carry out orders \"relat[ing] to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ec14329-c5ee-4d2e-b558-293f6a645e58","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511120-4511120","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511120","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"363 S.W.3d 479","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 010, the chancery court entered a final decree of divorce. Among other things, the decree classified and divided the parties' retirement accounts. With respect to Dr. Mpoyi's retirement accounts, the decree provided as follows: The Husband shall receive his 401(k) retirement through Great-West Retirement Services with an approximate balance in the amount of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Eight and 23/100 Dollars ($8,348.23). The 1 Under the rules of this Court, as a memorandum opinion, this opinion may not be published, \"cited[,] or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.\" Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10. Husb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4511569 Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.E.2d 535. Docket: E-19-017 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511569 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tem. {¶ 21} Continuing jurisdiction over pension disbursements under R.C. 3105.89 is separate from the property division order under R.C. 3105.171. See e.g. Walsh at ¶ 27 10. (\"Nothing in the provision that gave the court continuing jurisdiction over the QDRO authorized it to alter the final decree of divorce.\"). Significantly, the trial court in this case struck the OPERS payment from the consent decree entirely, and substituted a non- pension, cash payment in its place. As in Walsh, while the trial court attempted to reach the intended result of the property division order – in this case a lump sum payment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s - - that was my understanding is that the 110,000 would go into a drop account and then he would draw money from there. If he drew it all or he drew it monthly, you know, I wasn't privy to that. I just knew that he was going to get 110,000 out of my retirement account. She also acknowledged that the purpose of consulting with an expert was \"to see if he could get a lump sum of my retirement.\" 4. {¶ 8} After considering the testimony and existing authority, the trial court found either mutual mistake or unilateral mistake, preventing formation of a valid agreement between the parties regarding property division. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Court decided Walsh v. Walsh, 157 Ohio St.3d 322, 2019-Ohio-3723, 136 N.E.3d 460.3 {¶ 14} In Walsh, the parties intended, as a term of the divorce decree, that the wife receive direct payment from the government, as her portion of her husband's military pension. However, the rules governing military pensions required a marriage lasting at least 10 years before the military could issue direct payment to the service-member's spouse. Walsh at ¶ 8, citing 10 U.S.C. 1408(d)(2). The parties married in 1994 and separated after six years, but more than 13 years passed before the divorce filing. Walsh at ¶ 2. Based on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e81518e-4052-4f3b-8a22-8490d01c9d12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511569-4511569","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"E-19-017 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"690 N.E.2d 535","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104167, 2017-Ohio-4177, ¶ 9, quoting Hines v. Hines, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-15, 2010-Ohio-4807, ¶ 11 (Emphasis added.). An order under R.C. 3105.81 governs a \"benefit or lump sum payment * * * from a public retirement program to an alternate payee,\" requiring a specific form created under R.C. 3105.90 by the state retirement system. {¶ 21} Continuing jurisdiction over pension disbursements under R.C. 3105.89 is separate from the property division order under R.C. 3105.171. See e.g. Walsh at ¶ 27 10. (\"Nothing in the provision that gave the court continuing jurisdiction over the QDRO authorized"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc66ff95-6119-479e-bb18-6ce04a87e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4511740 Extracted reporter citation: 466 S.W.3d 783. Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc66ff95-6119-479e-bb18-6ce04a87e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc66ff95-6119-479e-bb18-6ce04a87e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: monthly child support and monthly cash medical support for K.R.C.; (2) an Order Clarifying Child Support Obligation, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering Schuch to pay $3,056.25 in child support arrears and $1,150.45 in medical support arrears; and (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering that Schuch's monthly child support and monthly cash medical support be paid from the monthly annuity payment she receives. In addition, the supplemental clerk's record includes a Notice of Nonsuit of Party filed by Kelly Susekov. In that notice, Susekov stated she no longer desired to prosecute suit against Cooper. On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fc66ff95-6119-479e-bb18-6ce04a87e120","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4511740-4511740","title":"CourtListener opinion 4511740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: child support and monthly cash medical support for K.R.C.; (2) an Order Clarifying Child Support Obligation, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering Schuch to pay $3,056.25 in child support arrears and $1,150.45 in medical support arrears; and (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering that Schuch's monthly child support and monthly cash medical support be paid from the monthly annuity payment she receives. In addition, the supplemental clerk's record includes a Notice of Nonsuit of Party filed by Kelly Susekov. In that notice, Susekov stated she no longer desired to prosecute suit against Cooper. On"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4512135 Extracted reporter citation: 861 N.W.2d 449. Docket: A-19-436. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4512135 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nce Agency. The decree assigned Amy \"50% of [David's] -1- Retirement Annuity of the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) plan together with any cost of living adjustment and early retirement subsidies pursuant to a [qualified domestic relations order] or Court Order Acceptable for Processing (hereinafter COAP).\" The decree also provided that any salary adjustments that occur after the date of the divorce decree and before David's date of retirement shall be incorporated into the calculation of Amy's share of David's annuity. No appeal was taken from the decree. Subsequently, the district court entered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d's motion containing communications between him and David's previous attorney regarding the decree and COAP. This exhibit detailed the negotiations regarding the language of the decree and, specifically, the language of paragraph 12(b) concerning David's DIA retirement plan. Paragraph 12(b) in the decree first prepared by David's attorney specified that Amy would be awarded \"50% of [David's] -2- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) retirement plan.\" In response, Amy's attorney proposed revisions to paragraph 12(b), which David's attorney eventually incorporated into the decree that was entered by the court. According to Exhibi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: argument was addressed in the case of Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743, 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998). There, the parties were divorced pursuant to a divorce decree providing that -4- the wife \"‘should receive one-fourth of any payments received from the [husband's] pension and retirement plan by [the husband] at the time such payments are received.'\" Id. at 745, 580 N.W.2d at 518. Several years later, the district court granted the wife's request to enter a QDRO consistent with the decree, distributing one-fourth of the pension, without offsetting post-decree accumulations to the pension. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"739b5b29-ce55-4e35-a7ec-f2b4a29da333","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4512135-4512135","title":"CourtListener opinion 4512135","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-19-436","extracted_reporter_citation":"861 N.W.2d 449","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: . The decree assigned Amy \"50% of [David's] -1- Retirement Annuity of the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) plan together with any cost of living adjustment and early retirement subsidies pursuant to a [qualified domestic relations order] or Court Order Acceptable for Processing (hereinafter COAP).\" The decree also provided that any salary adjustments that occur after the date of the divorce decree and before David's date of retirement shall be incorporated into the calculation of Amy's share of David's annuity. No appeal was taken from the decree. Subsequently, the district court entered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc115d8e-a628-4751-88cd-c377ce31db85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625","title":"CourtListener opinion 4513625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WM-19-012 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4513625 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: WM-19-012 Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4513625 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc115d8e-a628-4751-88cd-c377ce31db85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625","title":"CourtListener opinion 4513625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WM-19-012 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc115d8e-a628-4751-88cd-c377ce31db85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4513625-4513625","title":"CourtListener opinion 4513625","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WM-19-012 Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: arent can communicate with a child ‘notwithstanding the inability to physically visit with the child.'\" Id., quoting In re Adoptions of Doyle, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2003-A-0071 and 2003-A-0072, 2004-Ohio-4197, ¶ 17. {¶ 28} Here, neither party put the domestic relations order in the record, so we only have the parents' testimony about their agreement. Mother testified that father agreed to \"giving up visitation\" in exchange for mother \"giv[ing] up\" child support and waiving father's child support arrears. Father testified that mother did not want him to have \"contact visitation with the children\" and that their agreement req"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4520574 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4520574 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ational fact finder's conclusion that half of the income from retirement accounts reported by Hector on his 2012 tax return—approximately $57,063—would have been delivered to Susana pursuant to the trial court's property division and in accordance with its qualified domestic relations orders if Hector had not wrongfully withdrawn the entirety of the retirement accounts while the divorce was still pending. Hector argues that no evidence was adduced to support an unequal division of assets considering the factors guiding the exercise of discretion in that context outlined in Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981), but the task before the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2011-CM-3393) § OPINION In this dispute over the division of retirement funds in a divorce, Appellant Hector Gomez challenges a money judgment entered against him and in favor of his ex-wife, Appellee Susana Gomez. Their divorce decree had divided two retirement accounts held in Hector's name, but while the divorce was pending and in violation of a court order, Hector withdrew and spent all of the retirement funds. Susana filed suit to enforce the property division, TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. §§ 9.001-.014, and she also alleged fraud on the community, see id. § 7.009. The trial court entered judgment based on both grounds alleg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to being unemployed, he spent all of the withdrawn funds on rent, medical expenses, and other living expenses. Hector's 2012 federal tax return, filed as a married individual filing separately, covered a period while the divorce was pending and reported pension income of $114,127. Hector testified that he did not prepare the document, he did not think the reported pension income was accurate, and he asserted that he did not \"take out that much.\" However, he admitted that he had never amended the return to correct the amount of pension income reported. A 2011 quarterly statement for one of the retirement accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ca24e2-7eb7-49c7-b1ed-ef6e735d1c44","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4520574-4520574","title":"CourtListener opinion 4520574","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , the trial court awarded to Susana 50% of the two FedEx retirement accounts, together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on those amounts arising since the date of their marriage, as would be more particularly defined in a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. The trial court later issued two QDROs, informing the plans' trustees that Susana was entitled to receive 50% of Hector's accrued benefit under each plan. After the QDROs were filed with the plans' trustees, Susana learned that Hector had withdrawn all of the funds from the retirement accounts. Susana then filed a petition for enforcement of the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e61d205-d77c-4f41-b283-ab75624297aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-2123 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"14 N.E.3d 854","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4521088 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Duckworth. Extracted reporter citation: 14 N.E.3d 854. Docket: 19A-DC-2123 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4521088 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e61d205-d77c-4f41-b283-ab75624297aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-2123 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"14 N.E.3d 854","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e61d205-d77c-4f41-b283-ab75624297aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-2123 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"14 N.E.3d 854","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the properties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to submit a brief, we will not develop an argument on her behalf, but instead,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e61d205-d77c-4f41-b283-ab75624297aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-2123 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"14 N.E.3d 854","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): arded two other properties owned by the parties. Both parties presented appraisal evidence concerning the value of the properties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e61d205-d77c-4f41-b283-ab75624297aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521088-4521088","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521088","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19A-DC-2123 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"14 N.E.3d 854","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: roperties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to submit a brief, we will not develop an argument on her behalf, but instead,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"984e7386-9566-41f7-9020-e7c4f3e66097","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0043","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4521478 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA SULLINS AND RAY SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 19-0043. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4521478 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"984e7386-9566-41f7-9020-e7c4f3e66097","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0043","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"984e7386-9566-41f7-9020-e7c4f3e66097","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0043","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 015 WL 4935620, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). This is the third, which while purporting to raise new issues, is an attack on prior rulings of the district court. Those prior rulings date back to mid-2017. At that time, Donna moved for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to implement the supreme court's 2006 opinion. Ray filed a resistance. Following a hearing at which Ray failed to appear, the district court entered a QDRO. Ray filed a motion stating he was \"incapacitated\" on the day of the hearing and wished to have the hearing rescheduled. The district court rescheduled the hearing, but meanwhile, Ray moved"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"984e7386-9566-41f7-9020-e7c4f3e66097","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4521478-4521478","title":"CourtListener opinion 4521478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0043","extracted_reporter_citation":"715 N.W.2d 242","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 5620, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). This is the third, which while purporting to raise new issues, is an attack on prior rulings of the district court. Those prior rulings date back to mid-2017. At that time, Donna moved for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to implement the supreme court's 2006 opinion. Ray filed a resistance. Following a hearing at which Ray failed to appear, the district court entered a QDRO. Ray filed a motion stating he was \"incapacitated\" on the day of the hearing and wished to have the hearing rescheduled. The district court rescheduled the hearing, but meanwhile, Ray moved"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4527607 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Cooper. Extracted reporter citation: 793 P.2d 810. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sources of future income were monthly social security disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, and the subject union disability benefits. Boharski, 257 Mont. at 73-76, 847 P.2d at 710-13. Distinguishing the maintenance obligation (and related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) securing it10) as mechanisms for compelling performance of a legal duty of support, we essentially held that neither constituted a 10 As defined and where applicable under 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (Retirement Equity Act of 1984), a \"qualified domestic relations order\" is a means for diverting certain otherwise divisible retirement pension benefits from on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, dissolving his marriage to Terri Elder (Terri) and equitably apportioning their marital estate. The narrow issue on appeal is: Whether the District Court erroneously characterized Sam's early disability retirement benefit as a divisible marital asset rather than the equivalent of post-dissolution employment income? ¶2 We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Sam and Terri married in 2000, in Helena, Montana. Two children were born as issue of the marriage in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: enefits compensate individuals who live past retirement age. . . . [They essentially] constitute deferred compensation for services [previously] rendered and function as a substitute for life savings. Like any joint savings accumulated during the marriage, pension and retirement benefits are subject to [equitable] distribution . . . upon divorce. Gragg, 12. S.W.3d at 418. ¶15 SRS members are eligible for normal \"service retirement benefits\" upon reaching 20 years of service without disability. Sections 19-2-303(35), (48), and 19-7-501, MCA. Vested SRS members without 20 years of service credit are eligible for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd63454d-447f-4a11-a71e-aa99bacc06d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527607-4527607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"793 P.2d 810","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of future income were monthly social security disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, and the subject union disability benefits. Boharski, 257 Mont. at 73-76, 847 P.2d at 710-13. Distinguishing the maintenance obligation (and related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) securing it10) as mechanisms for compelling performance of a legal duty of support, we essentially held that neither constituted a 10 As defined and where applicable under 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (Retirement Equity Act of 1984), a \"qualified domestic relations order\" is a means for diverting certain otherwise divisible retirement pension benefits from on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f171e61e-ea4a-4aba-b9d1-a2460b2f35a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 P.3d 418","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4527608 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Debuff. Extracted reporter citation: 443 P.3d 418. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527608 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f171e61e-ea4a-4aba-b9d1-a2460b2f35a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 P.3d 418","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f171e61e-ea4a-4aba-b9d1-a2460b2f35a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 P.3d 418","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on of the double recovery issue. ¶9 Regarding the VOYA account, the District Court noted that Dean had cashed out the account and received a full distribution of the funds on December 26, 2017, instead of transferring Malinda's portion to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). He did this without Malinda's consent or the District Court's approval. Dean asserted that after the District Court issued the March 2016 Decree he learned that VOYA no longer sold variable annuities and that the annuity could not be divided as contemplated by the QDRO, therefore Dean's only option was to cash out the account, which had increas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f171e61e-ea4a-4aba-b9d1-a2460b2f35a8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527608-4527608","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527608","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"443 P.3d 418","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: double recovery issue. ¶9 Regarding the VOYA account, the District Court noted that Dean had cashed out the account and received a full distribution of the funds on December 26, 2017, instead of transferring Malinda's portion to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). He did this without Malinda's consent or the District Court's approval. Dean asserted that after the District Court issued the March 2016 Decree he learned that VOYA no longer sold variable annuities and that the annuity could not be divided as contemplated by the QDRO, therefore Dean's only option was to cash out the account, which had increas"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5ae4bef-9321-46ea-add7-14730da2306b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4527946 Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527946 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5ae4bef-9321-46ea-add7-14730da2306b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5ae4bef-9321-46ea-add7-14730da2306b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1 The Honorable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5ae4bef-9321-46ea-add7-14730da2306b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527946-4527946","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527946","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: norable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"430499a9-4d87-4506-8d62-fbfa3e08e17e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4527947 Extracted reporter citation: 466 S.W.3d 783. Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527947 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"430499a9-4d87-4506-8d62-fbfa3e08e17e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"430499a9-4d87-4506-8d62-fbfa3e08e17e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1 The Honorable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019. 04-19-00818-CV BACKGROUND Kasey Schuch is K.R.C.'s biological mother; Kelly Susekov is K.R.C.'s maternal aunt. On June 8, 2018, Susekov filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator of K.R.C. In her petition, Susekov named Cooper as K.R.C.'s alleged father and asserted that C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"430499a9-4d87-4506-8d62-fbfa3e08e17e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4527947-4527947","title":"CourtListener opinion 4527947","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-19-00818-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"466 S.W.3d 783","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: norable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019. 04-19-00818-CV BACKGROUND Kasey Schuch is K.R.C.'s biological mother; Kelly Susekov is K.R.C.'s maternal aunt. On June 8, 2018, Susekov filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator of K.R.C. In her petition, Susekov named Cooper as K.R.C.'s alleged father and asserted that C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ec00d71-8e7a-4d43-bb60-06ebfcc86ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041","title":"CourtListener opinion 4528041","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"724 N.E.2d 410","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4528041 Extracted case name: LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 724 N.E.2d 410. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4528041 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ec00d71-8e7a-4d43-bb60-06ebfcc86ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041","title":"CourtListener opinion 4528041","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"724 N.E.2d 410","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ec00d71-8e7a-4d43-bb60-06ebfcc86ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041","title":"CourtListener opinion 4528041","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"724 N.E.2d 410","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat decree, Olic was awarded an interest in Mr. Olic's Ford-UAW retirement plan, and Haynes received an additional $5,000 fee from the division of the Olics' property. {¶ 5} In October 2010, Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to the Ford Motor Company to effectuate the transfer of Olic's marital share of Mr. Olic's retirement benefits to her. Ford rejected that QDRO in February 2011. Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a second QDRO to Haynes for his review and approval in April 2011. {¶ 6} During his disciplinary hearing, Haynes testified that he had no written evidence to confirm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ec00d71-8e7a-4d43-bb60-06ebfcc86ad5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4528041-4528041","title":"CourtListener opinion 4528041","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"724 N.E.2d 410","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ding. She paid him an initial retainer of $2,500, plus an additional $300 for a filing fee. On September 9, 2010, the domestic-relations court issued a decree granting Olic a divorce. As part of that decree, Olic was awarded an interest in Mr. Olic's Ford-UAW retirement plan, and Haynes received an additional $5,000 fee from the division of the Olics' property. {¶ 5} In October 2010, Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to the Ford Motor Company to effectuate the transfer of Olic's marital share of Mr. Olic's retirement benefits to her. Ford rejected that QDRO in February 2011. Mr. Olic's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4530374 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1879 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4530374 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: W, J.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2020 Appellant, Susan M. Reis (\"Wife\"), appeals from the October 28, 2019 Order that denied her Petition to Enforce Divorce Decree, which requested that the court direct the entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 almost three years after the entry of the original QDRO. Upon review, we agree with the trial court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO and, thus, we affirm. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: _________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under [a retirement benefits plan]. To be ‘qualified,' the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits.\" Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 (Pa. 2007) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted). J-S13017-20 A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary to our disposition. Briefly, Wife and Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eet Metal Worker's Union Local 19 (\"Union\") for thirty-five years, sixteen of those years while married to Wife. Husband participated in the Union retirement plan, which was comprised of a Sheet Metal Workers Annuity (\"Annuity\"), and a Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund (\"Pension\"). Pursuant to the Union's \"Rule of 85,\" when a Union member's age and years of service equals or exceeds the sum of 85, that individual is entitled to receive an unreduced early retirement benefit. Husband filed a Complaint in Divorce on December 5, 2011. On February 23, 2016, after considering a Special Master's Report and Recommenda"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c6dea744-8307-46ad-8554-8e10b1eb4c1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530374-4530374","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530374","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1879 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"938 A.2d 246","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: equesting court approval of the Annuity QDRO and the Pension QDRO, the latter of which is at issue in the instant appeal. On the same day, the trial court approved and entered both on the record. The Pension QDRO, states, in relevant part: 7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to the Alternate Payee 55.0% times the marital share fraction of the Participant's vested accrued benefit, as of the earlier of the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date or the date the Participant permanently ceases to accrue benefits under the [Union Pension]. The numerator of the marital share fraction is the num"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d540776-2ffa-477e-9370-f236b8c66016","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4530942 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4530942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d540776-2ffa-477e-9370-f236b8c66016","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d540776-2ffa-477e-9370-f236b8c66016","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4530942-4530942","title":"CourtListener opinion 4530942","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ill deny the petition. Ke has a pending in forma pauperis civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his initial complaint, Ke alleged, inter alia, the existence of a civil rights conspiracy concerning the domestic relations order * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. (\"DRO\") entered in his divorce case in Erie County, Pennsylvania. In particular, Ke asserted that counsel for the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System conspired with his ex-wife's attorney to deprive Ke of 50% of his monthl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4531948 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4531948 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nd District of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases between courts of appeals). relations order. She asserts that her former spouse, appellee Daniel Jude Leveille, failed to name her as the survivor beneficiary of his military retirement plan. In three issues, Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion and erred in concluding that she failed to invoke a deemed election for survivor benefit coverage. We affirm. Background Leveille and Murphy were married in 1987. In 2000, Leveille completed 20 years of creditable military service. On April 22, 2001, Leveille, a colo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ayments made directly to [Murphy] by DFAS shall be a credit against this obligation. 8 A DRO \"is a species of post-divorce enforcement order.\" In re N.T.P., 402 S.W.3d 13, 23 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). Its purpose is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. 9 \"Disposable retired pay\" is the total monthly amount of retirement pay to which a member is entitled, less applicable exclusions. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4). 5 For purposes of this order, [Leveille] is specifically directed, on p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2007, the trial court took judicial notice of the MSA and rendered a divorce, to be reduced to a writing at a later date. On November 10, 2007, Leveille married Rhonda Leveille. On January 18, 2008, the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order, effectuating a property division between Leveille and 2 The Survivor Benefit Plan is a Department of Defense sponsored program that allows an eligible servicemember to elect to provide an annuity, payable upon the servicemember's death, to a spouse, former spouse, or child. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1447–1455. 2 Murphy. Murphy moved to modify the decree, ass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c624716-0c26-46b9-84ad-3f1b96208b3f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4531948-4531948","title":"CourtListener opinion 4531948","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: Daniel Jude Leveille, failed to name her as the survivor beneficiary of his military retirement plan. In three issues, Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion and erred in concluding that she failed to invoke a deemed election for survivor benefit coverage. We affirm. Background Leveille and Murphy were married in 1987. In 2000, Leveille completed 20 years of creditable military service. On April 22, 2001, Leveille, a colonel in the United States Air Force (Reserve) (\"USAF\"), submitted a Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (\"SBP\") election to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc668a92-0b22-4214-8a8e-7ed17ac6322e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579","title":"CourtListener opinion 4534579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346790 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4534579 Docket: 346790 Oakland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4534579 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc668a92-0b22-4214-8a8e-7ed17ac6322e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579","title":"CourtListener opinion 4534579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346790 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc668a92-0b22-4214-8a8e-7ed17ac6322e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579","title":"CourtListener opinion 4534579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346790 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0 is used, the amount transferred to [plaintiff] shall include all growth and losses thereon between February 28, 2017 and the actual date of distribution to [plaintiff]. To the extent required to insure the tax-free nature of this rollover transaction, a qualified domestic relations order shall be utilized. Each party shall pay 50% of the cost of the QDRO preparation fee. * * * 33A. In the event a party refuses or fails to perform any requirement to effectuate this Agreement, and a party has to seek relief from the Court and prevails on the relief sought, the other party may be ordered to pay the attorney fees and costs reasonably in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc668a92-0b22-4214-8a8e-7ed17ac6322e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579","title":"CourtListener opinion 4534579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346790 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: reasonable and he complied with the judgment of divorce and the divorce settlement agreement. We affirm in part and remand in part. Plaintiff is entitled to trial court and appellate attorney fees for enforcing the Rasasri option transfer and Merrill Lynch retirement account provisions of the settlement agreement. On remand, however, the trial court must determine whether defendant violated the settlement agreement as to the Devanhalli property. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees for that issue if and only if defendant violated the settlement agreement on that issue. This appeal will be decided without oral argument pursuan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc668a92-0b22-4214-8a8e-7ed17ac6322e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4534579-4534579","title":"CourtListener opinion 4534579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"346790 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the amount transferred to [plaintiff] shall include all growth and losses thereon between February 28, 2017 and the actual date of distribution to [plaintiff]. To the extent required to insure the tax-free nature of this rollover transaction, a qualified domestic relations order shall be utilized. Each party shall pay 50% of the cost of the QDRO preparation fee. * * * 33A. In the event a party refuses or fails to perform any requirement to effectuate this Agreement, and a party has to seek relief from the Court and prevails on the relief sought, the other party may be ordered to pay the attorney fees and costs reasonably in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4535263 Extracted reporter citation: 972 N.E.2d 359. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535263 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rty years of service. Appellant's Br. at 6. The next month, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. [4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows: 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [(\"QDRO provision\")]. Wife Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value determined as of June"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: vor benefit coverage after Husband reaches retirement age, or \"post- retirement.\" Appellee's Br. at 11. Nevertheless, Wife points out, and Husband agrees, that the agreement uses terminology that differs from that used by the DOD in describing Husband's retirement benefits, especially the optional survivor benefit coverage. The QDRO provision uses the following terms that do not appear in any relevant DOD document: \"Military Reserve Annuity Retirement\"; \"pre-retirement survivor's benefit\"; and \"Military Reserve Survivor Pension.\" Thus, in order to determine whether the parties intended Wife's survivor benefit cover"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . The next month, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. [4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows: 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [(\"QDRO provision\")]. Wife Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value determined as of June 14, 2017. Wife sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"111799d1-70c5-4e1e-be61-1f0674e8fa69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535263-4535263","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"972 N.E.2d 359","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s of service. Appellant's Br. at 6. The next month, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. [4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows: 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [(\"QDRO provision\")]. Wife Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value determined as of June"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4555d052-af4c-45d2-95f3-05149651c966","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The","extracted_reporter_citation":"64 P.3d 92","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4535737 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thompson. Extracted reporter citation: 64 P.3d 92. Docket: 35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535737 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4555d052-af4c-45d2-95f3-05149651c966","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The","extracted_reporter_citation":"64 P.3d 92","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4555d052-af4c-45d2-95f3-05149651c966","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The","extracted_reporter_citation":"64 P.3d 92","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: A Retirement Plan with the agreement that she will be responsible for payment of all the taxes on the distribution and the community debt that is to be paid from a portion of the IRA proceeds. Upon final decree of dissolution being entered and a subsequent QDRO being completed, wife shall withdraw from the IRA account a minimum of $70,000 in order to pay the outstanding community debts of the parties. A comprehensive list shall be updated and attached to this agreement. These debts must be paid as soon as possible and no later than one month from the date of completion of the QDRO. Any remaining funds shall b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4555d052-af4c-45d2-95f3-05149651c966","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The","extracted_reporter_citation":"64 P.3d 92","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: toward a parenting plan. The parties did not sign any settlement agreement, however, until February 1, 2016. The settlement agreement, captioned CR 2A Mediated Agreement, read in part: Wife shall be awarded [one hundred percent] of husband's VanGuard IRA Retirement Plan with the agreement that she will be responsible for payment of all the taxes on the distribution and the community debt that is to be paid from a portion of the IRA proceeds. Upon final decree of dissolution being entered and a subsequent QDRO being completed, wife shall withdraw from the IRA account a minimum of $70,000 in order to pay the outstanding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4555d052-af4c-45d2-95f3-05149651c966","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535737-4535737","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The","extracted_reporter_citation":"64 P.3d 92","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: esza pocketed $40,716. He could have paid additional community debits, including a debt to U.S. Bank in the amount of $4,450 and a debt owed to Citibank in the sum of $1,230, but he chose otherwise. On February 12, 2016, Jerrie Anthony signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required under the parties' agreement and the dissolution decree so that the holder of the VanGuard IRA retirement account would assign the account to Anthony. Konrad Kulesza told her she must pay $300 for the QDRO to be prepared, and, on February 12, she went to Kulesza's attorney's office and paid the sum. The trial court entered the QDRO o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4535852 Extracted case name: PAMELA A. DOBBINS v. MARK J. DOBBINS HUMPHREY. Extracted reporter citation: 190 A.3d 244. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535852 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: * Chief Justice Saufley participated in the appeal but resigned before this opinion was certified. Justice Alexander also participated in the appeal but retired before this opinion was certified. 1 The parties and the court refer to the court's order as a \"qualified domestic relations order\" or \"QDRO.\" However, the court's 2009 order is entitled \"Court Order Acceptable for Processing Under the Federal Employees Retirement System\" (COAP), which is required by 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.101-.1121 (2020). See 5 U.S.C.S. § 8467(a)(1) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140); see also 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:14 at 104-06 (4th ed."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: BINS HUMPHREY, J. [¶1] Mark J. Dobbins appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) granting Pamela A. Dobbins's motion to enforce the terms of a 2007 divorce judgment and a 2009 court order acceptable for processing (COAP) federal retirement benefits.1 Mark argues that the language in the * Chief Justice Saufley participated in the appeal but resigned before this opinion was certified. Justice Alexander also participated in the appeal but retired before this opinion was certified. 1 The parties and the court refer to the court's order as a \"qualified domestic relations order\" or \"QDRO.\" However, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: [¶2] Pamela and Mark were married in 1976. On July 26, 2006, Pamela filed a complaint for divorce against Mark.2 The court (R. Murray, J.) entered a final divorce judgment on October 17, 2007, which stated, in relevant part, that [Mark] is the owner of pension/retirement plans through the United States Postal Service. The court finds that said pension/retirement accounts are marital property and orders that said pension/retirement accounts be divided equally between the parties. The Court further orders that the necessary [COAP] shall be prepared by [Pamela's] counsel and shall be filed with the Court and f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a37eab5e-28ec-451d-a86c-dcba821667af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4535852-4535852","title":"CourtListener opinion 4535852","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"190 A.3d 244","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: o 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:14 at 104-06 (4th ed. 2019) (discussing COAPs and the distribution of federal retirement benefits). A QDRO is an order allocating retirement benefits pursuant to a private retirement plan governed by ERISA, see 29 U.S.C.S. § 1056(d) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140), from which Mark's federal retirement plan is exempt, see 29 U.S.C.S. § 1003(b)(1) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140). Although a COAP has the same procedural effect as a QDRO, a COAP is required before the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will distribute federal retirement be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4538382 Extracted reporter citation: 673 N.W.2d 261. Docket: 20190300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4538382 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account \"shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce\" through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). If Myron Axtman's Hess pension account could not be equally divided by a QDRO, the court suggested the issue should be dealt with by motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Myron Axtman filed a proposed QDRO on March 26, 2019. The proposed QDRO did not address the pension payments Myron Axtman received during the pendency of the divorce. The same day, Amy A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r, we stated we would have preferred the court's correction have been made under Rule 60(b), but the correction was proper under Rule 60(a). Id. The facts of this case are analogous to the facts in Roth and Gruebele. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's \"Hess Retirement account shall be 6 divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" The amended judgment ordered Myron Axtman pay Amy Axtman half of the pension payments he had received since the commencement of the divorce action. As expressed in the original judgment, the court inten"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 60(a) without providing proper notice. We affirm. I This is an appeal from a divorce action that was commenced in 2017. The only issue was division of the parties' marital property. Included as part of the parties' marital property was Myron Axtman's Hess pension. The pension benefits commenced on February 1, 2015, at which time Myron Axtman began receiving $2,891.60 per month. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account \"shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7e013ac0-0fa0-40e9-9aa3-4cfcf8267a4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4538382-4538382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4538382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ny and evidence, and construed the language of the stipulation to find a mistake from omission and to enter the amended judgment.\" Id. at ¶ 19. In Roth, 2006 ND 119, ¶ 11, 715 N.W.2d 149, the district court issued a memorandum opinion awarding 65% of Roth's 401(k) to Hoffer and 35% to Roth. At trial, evidence was introduced valuing the 401(k) at $68,352.41 with an outstanding loan of $11,233.77 against the account. Id. at ¶ 11. The judgment, which was prepared by Hoffer, stated the 401(k) had a value of $53,620.91 with an $11,233.77 loan against it, leaving a net value of $42,387.14. Id. at ¶ 2. The judgment awarded"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4539763 Extracted reporter citation: 673 N.W.2d 261. Docket: 20190300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4539763 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account \"shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce\" through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). If Myron Axtman's Hess pension account could not be equally divided by a QDRO, the court suggested the issue should be dealt with by motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Myron Axtman filed a proposed QDRO on March 26, 2019. The proposed QDRO did not address the pension payments Myron Axtman received during the pendency of the divorce. The same day, Amy A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r, we stated we would have preferred the court's correction have been made under Rule 60(b), but the correction was proper under Rule 60(a). Id. The facts of this case are analogous to the facts in Roth and Gruebele. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's \"Hess Retirement account shall be 6 divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" The amended judgment ordered Myron Axtman pay Amy Axtman half of the pension payments he had received since the commencement of the divorce action. As expressed in the original judgment, the court inten"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 60(a) without providing proper notice. We affirm. I This is an appeal from a divorce action that was commenced in 2017. The only issue was division of the parties' marital property. Included as part of the parties' marital property was Myron Axtman's Hess pension. The pension benefits commenced on February 1, 2015, at which time Myron Axtman began receiving $2,891.60 per month. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account \"shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d25dd726-574e-4657-94f5-19c8a5fd2d21","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4539763-4539763","title":"CourtListener opinion 4539763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20190300","extracted_reporter_citation":"673 N.W.2d 261","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ny and evidence, and construed the language of the stipulation to find a mistake from omission and to enter the amended judgment.\" Id. at ¶ 19. In Roth, 2006 ND 119, ¶ 11, 715 N.W.2d 149, the district court issued a memorandum opinion awarding 65% of Roth's 401(k) to Hoffer and 35% to Roth. At trial, evidence was introduced valuing the 401(k) at $68,352.41 with an outstanding loan of $11,233.77 against the account. Id. at ¶ 11. The judgment, which was prepared by Hoffer, stated the 401(k) had a value of $53,620.91 with an $11,233.77 loan against it, leaving a net value of $42,387.14. Id. at ¶ 2. The judgment awarded"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4541435 Extracted reporter citation: 783 A.2d 807. Docket: 1324 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4541435 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: licensed actuary who has testified in Berks County, among others, regarding the issue of valuation of pension benefits, including PSERS. Wife's expert, William Ehrich, Esquire, is an attorney whose practice focuses on the preparation of ADRO's, DRO's, and QDRO's for the purposes of distributing pension benefits. The parties stipulated that both Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ehrich were \"expert[s] in regard to pension evaluations.\" N.T. Divorce Hearing, 12/5/18-12/27-18, at 6. As the trial court noted, the Master found a significant discrepancy of an amount nearly $100,000.00 among the numerous, final valuations present"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the parties. Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127, 131 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations omitted). Wife's PSERS account is a defined benefit pension plan. Section 3501(c) of the Divorce Code speaks to the calculations that must be made when valuing a defined benefit retirement plan for purposes of equitable distribution according to either an immediate offset or a deferred distribution method: (c) Defined benefit retirement plans.--Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a.1) and (b): (1) In the case of the marital portion of a defined benefit retirement plan being distributed by means of a deferred distribution, the defined benefit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: .R.A.P. 341(c), denying Husband's Exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation for Equitable Distribution which, inter alia, deferred valuation and distribution of Kelly J. Musket's (\"Wife\") Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\") pension. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein as follows: The parties in the above-captioned divorce, [Husband] and [Wife] were married on June 26, 2006. Husband initiated divorce proceedings on September 23, 2015. This appeal arises out of this [c]ourt's order of July 15, 2019, designating our order of May 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d20face-c354-43cf-911a-c3381387012b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541435-4541435","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541435","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1324 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"783 A.2d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on May 23, 2019, made final for purposes of appeal by the Order entered on July 15, 2019, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 341(c), denying Husband's Exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation for Equitable Distribution which, inter alia, deferred valuation and distribution of Kelly J. Musket's (\"Wife\") Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\") pension. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein as follows: The parties in the above-captioned divorce, [Husband] and [Wife] were married on June 26, 2006. Husba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a8e396-1749-46f3-85e5-7f822db293d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.2d 2","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4541756 Extracted reporter citation: 479 S.W.2d 2. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4541756 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a8e396-1749-46f3-85e5-7f822db293d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.2d 2","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a8e396-1749-46f3-85e5-7f822db293d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.2d 2","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he petition did state a claim, and retransferred to the court of appeals for resolution of the issues on appeal); Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 531 (Mo. banc 2003) (following this Court's grant of transfer from the court of appeals, this Court determined a qualified domestic relations order was appealable and retransferred for the court of appeals to consider the merits); Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) (retransferring to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits after the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court due to a conflict between the districts); Paulson v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 51"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33a8e396-1749-46f3-85e5-7f822db293d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4541756-4541756","title":"CourtListener opinion 4541756","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"479 S.W.2d 2","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n did state a claim, and retransferred to the court of appeals for resolution of the issues on appeal); Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 531 (Mo. banc 2003) (following this Court's grant of transfer from the court of appeals, this Court determined a qualified domestic relations order was appealable and retransferred for the court of appeals to consider the merits); Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) (retransferring to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits after the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court due to a conflict between the districts); Paulson v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 51"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4544345 Docket: 347143 Oakland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544345 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat he was recently granted social security disability in the amount of $2,614 per month, which is now his only income. Defendant testified that he and plaintiff divided all pensions and retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does not own a home but instead rents a house in Royal Oak with a partner. He also no longer ow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tions. With respect to income, assets, and bills, defendant testified that he was recently granted social security disability in the amount of $2,614 per month, which is now his only income. Defendant testified that he and plaintiff divided all pensions and retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: er week providing caregiving, and makes between $20 and $100 per week selling flowers during the summer months. Plaintiff stated that she receives $184 per month from a Hewlett Packard 401(k) and expects to receive approximately $100 per month from the Boeing pension. Plaintiff received the parties' marital home in the divorce and defendant received an $8,000 Genworth annuity and plaintiff's IRA, worth $26,000, as payment for his share of the home. She still lives in the marital home that she was awarded in the divorce and which she refinanced with a mortgage in her name.1 She has approximately $60,000 in equity in th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7334bd00-475b-4bf7-bf79-148cbed1b10a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544345-4544345","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544345","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"347143 Oakland Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does not own a home but instead rents a house in Royal Oak with a partner. He also no longer owns a vehicle, but borrows and drives one of his live-in partner's vehicles and pays around $50 monthly for gas. He pays $775 per month in rent, $400 per month"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4544348 Docket: 344636 St. Joseph Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544348 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: other ancillary benefits associated with said Plan. If Defendant predeceases Plaintiff, then her benefit is to be paid to her estate, or if none, then to the children of the parties' marriage. Plaintiff may not take a refund of employee contributions. The QDRO/EDRO shall be prepared by Defendant's attorney and Defendant shall bear all the fees and costs associated with same. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, except as otherwise stated herein, each party shall have as their sole and separate property, to hold free and clear of any right, claims, title or interest of the other, any and all benefit, righ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: benefits of the pension plan. During the hearing, the mediator remarked that defendant was \"going to get the marital share of that pension . . . and any other pension benefits that [plaintiff] has . . . .\" Plaintiff's counsel agreed that \"whatever pension and retirement benefits [plaintiff] has for this employment that he's had during the marriage, [defendant] would be entitled to her marital share of it.\" Plaintiff's counsel also remarked that \"if it turns out that there is some other kind of benefit associated with that pension or retirement benefit, such as a cost of living increase, or something like that, [defendant] would be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: PER CURIAM. Defendant, Jacqueline Gray, appeals by delayed leave granted the order of the trial court determining that the parties' Consent Judgment of Divorce did not award her a surviving spouse's annuity as part of her share of plaintiff Kenneth Gray's pension benefit. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal involves the division of plaintiff's pension benefits as part of a judgment of divorce. The parties married in 1992, and in 2016 plaintiff filed for divorce. During mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement concerning the distribution of their marital property, including the division of the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bc9d273-00ef-4aa3-9167-f6eef30f819c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544348-4544348","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544348","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"344636 St. Joseph Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: court used the terms Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) and qualified domestic relationship order (QDRO) interchangeably. As this Court has previously discussed, retirement plans must comply with the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, 29 USC 1001 et seq., which precluded pension plan participants from assigning or alienating their benefits under plans that were subject to the act. Roth v Roth, 201 Mich App 563, 567; 506 NW2d 900 (1993), citing 29 USC 1056(d)(1) and 26 USC 401(a)(13). ERISA also contained a preemption provision, designed to establish the regulation of pension pl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4544656 Extracted reporter citation: 644 F.3d 1350. Docket: 1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544656 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: strator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S. Ct. 865 (2009). In Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled that the plan administrator had properly disregarded the ex-wife's waiver of her right to plan benefits in a divorce decree that was not a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and properly paid her benefits precisely because the deceased participant had affirmatively designated her as his beneficiary according to the plan's terms. Id. at 288-90, 299- 304, 129 S. Ct. at 868-69, 875-78. Kennedy stands for the proposition that, absent a QDRO to the contrary, a participant's affirmative designation of a spouse as a beneficia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rgia ________________________ (June 26, 2020) Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Wanda Crowder's ex-husband, Marvin Crowder, was a Delta Air Lines, Inc. employee who participated in his employer's retirement plan, the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"). Before he died, Wanda and Marvin Crowder divorced. After Mr. Crowder's death, the Plan's Recordkeeper, Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC (\"Fidelity\"), disbursed his plan benefits to his sister, Chappie Prince, as his designated beneficiary. Wanda Crowder appealed Fidelity's decision denying her own claim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: enefits under the Plan's terms. Wanda Crowder filed this action against the Plan, the Plan Administrator, and Fidelity, alleging claims of wrongful denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding, under de novo review, that the Plan Administrator's benefits determination was not wrong. On appeal, Crowder argues the defendants misinterpreted the Plan's terms and breached their fiduciary duties. After careful review and with the benefit of oral arg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2c5dc21-8edf-45db-826b-2d1e6e2d7060","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544656-4544656","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544656","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Wanda Crowder's ERISA claims. I. BACKGROUND For over thirty years, Mr. Crowder worked for Delta. As a Delta employee, Marvin Crowder participated in Delta's retirement plan, and died in 2016. We first review the pertinent terms of the Plan. A. Delta's Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Delta's Plan is a qualified, defined contribution plan governed by ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 401; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(34). The Plan Administrator is the Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (\"the Committee\"). In Section 12.05, the Plan gives the Committee: (1) the discretionary authority to interpre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4544765 Extracted reporter citation: 644 F.3d 1350. Docket: 1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544765 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: strator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S. Ct. 865 (2009). In Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled that the plan administrator had properly disregarded the ex-wife's waiver of her right to plan benefits in a divorce decree that was not a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and properly paid her benefits precisely because the deceased participant had affirmatively designated her as his beneficiary according to the plan's terms. Id. at 288-90, 299- 304, 129 S. Ct. at 868-69, 875-78. Kennedy stands for the proposition that, absent a QDRO to the contrary, a participant's affirmative designation of a spouse as a beneficia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e: 19-12342 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 20 Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Wanda Crowder's ex-husband, Marvin Crowder, was a Delta Air Lines, Inc. employee who participated in his employer's retirement plan, the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan (\"the Plan\"). Before he died, Wanda and Marvin Crowder divorced. After Mr. Crowder's death, the Plan's Recordkeeper, Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC (\"Fidelity\"), disbursed his plan benefits to his sister, Chappie Prince, as his designated beneficiary. Wanda Crowder appealed Fidelity's decision denying her own claim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: enefits under the Plan's terms. Wanda Crowder filed this action against the Plan, the Plan Administrator, and Fidelity, alleging claims of wrongful denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding, under de novo review, that the Plan Administrator's benefits determination was not wrong. On appeal, Crowder argues the defendants misinterpreted the Plan's terms and breached their fiduciary duties. After careful review and with the benefit of oral arg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba804900-fff1-4245-820d-d751e910fded","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4544765-4544765","title":"CourtListener opinion 4544765","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER","extracted_reporter_citation":"644 F.3d 1350","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Wanda Crowder's ERISA claims. I. BACKGROUND For over thirty years, Mr. Crowder worked for Delta. As a Delta employee, Marvin Crowder participated in Delta's retirement plan, and died in 2016. We first review the pertinent terms of the Plan. A. Delta's Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Delta's Plan is a qualified, defined contribution plan governed by ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 401; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(34). The Plan Administrator is the Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (\"the Committee\"). In Section 12.05, the Plan gives the Committee: (1) the discretionary authority to interpre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39d310b2-5d03-4755-a8e7-abec405ea6bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4548033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-0700","extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4548033 Extracted case name: B.W. v. R.F. Extracted reporter citation: 991 N.E.2d 684. Docket: 2018-0700. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4548033 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39d310b2-5d03-4755-a8e7-abec405ea6bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4548033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-0700","extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39d310b2-5d03-4755-a8e7-abec405ea6bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4548033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-0700","extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ete and untimely produced; (3) awarding permanent alimony despite Wife's failure to provide evidence to support such award; (4) ordering him to bear the cost of a therapeutic reunification process for Wife and the children; and (5) ordering him to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) or \"other vehicles\" necessary to divide the parties' assets. Wife, on cross-appeal, argues that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to consider, or hold a rehearing to address, the issue of Husband's remainder interest in his parents' irrevocable trust; (2) failing to award her any of the appreciation to, or interest on, her share of the parties'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39d310b2-5d03-4755-a8e7-abec405ea6bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4548033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-0700","extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: timely produced; (3) awarding permanent alimony despite Wife's failure to provide evidence to support such award; (4) ordering him to bear the cost of a therapeutic reunification process for Wife and the children; and (5) ordering him to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) or \"other vehicles\" necessary to divide the parties' assets. Wife, on cross-appeal, argues that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to consider, or hold a rehearing to address, the issue of Husband's remainder interest in his parents' irrevocable trust; (2) failing to award her any of the appreciation to, or interest on, her share of the parties'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39d310b2-5d03-4755-a8e7-abec405ea6bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4548033-4548033","title":"CourtListener opinion 4548033","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2018-0700","extracted_reporter_citation":"991 N.E.2d 684","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n if it had not found the agreement invalid in its entirety, the agreement's waiver-of-maintenance provision was \"unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.\" On October 31, 2018, the court issued a final divorce decree. After choosing a February 2015 asset valuation date, the court awarded Husband the marital residence, awarded Wife the entirety of her Roth IRA, and equitably divided the remaining assets between them. To effectuate the equitable division, Husband was ordered to pay Wife $1,011,359.88. Additional facts will be recited below as needed to address specific issues raised by the parties. On appeal, Husband argu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e812e8bb-79ed-4532-bbe8-5350774d5c28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4549162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-20-005 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4549162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: WD-20-005 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4549162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e812e8bb-79ed-4532-bbe8-5350774d5c28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4549162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-20-005 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e812e8bb-79ed-4532-bbe8-5350774d5c28","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4549162-4549162","title":"CourtListener opinion 4549162","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-20-005 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ive arguments for why appellee should be held in contempt, which we will address in turn: (1) appellee violated Wood County Court of Common Pleas Local Rule 6.08, which sets forth certain requirements that must be met when filing a motion to modify a prior domestic relations order; (2) appellee withdrew an estimated $45,000 from their sons' college accounts and did not report that amount as income; (3) appellee gave false testimony that S.S. graduated from high school in 2015; (4) appellee intentionally put the wrong dates on a June 25, 2019 motion to continue which confused appellant and caused her to miss a hearing; and (5) app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4551692 Extracted reporter citation: 159 U.S. 651. Docket: 29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4551692 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bution between the parties. [Husband] also has a Defined Contribution Plan, the value of which is subject to equitable distribution between the parties in the amount of [$10,041.84]. These plans shall be divided equally between the [Wife] and [Husband], by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The parties agree to divide equally the costs of hiring an outside firm to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. 2 On August 26, 1996, in apparent compliance with this language in the divorce decree requiring the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\"), Wife's attorney submitted, and the trial court entered, two order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r\") addressed Husband's Ohio Police and Fire (\"OPF\") pension.1 Recognizing that a public pension could not be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or equivalent at that time, the order provided: [I]n the event that [Husband's] retirement benefits become subject to direct assignment via a [QDRO] (or the equivalent thereof) at a future date, the parties hereby agree to submit to the administrator of the Pension Fund, a [QDRO], as set forth in Attachment \"A\", which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Order, in order to effectuate the direct distribution of a portion of [Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 1994-10-2283 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: July 29, 2020 CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, William H. Kalbaugh, appeals various orders related to the division of his pension benefits. I. {¶2} Mr. Kalbaugh (\"Husband\") and Deborah Kalbaugh (\"Wife\") divorced in 1995. Their divorce decree addressed the division of Husband's pension as follows: [Husband] has a pension plan with the Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund of Ohio with a value of [$68,496.38]. [Wife] has a Social Security Old Age Benefit Plan with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02e3a13e-07cf-4342-aeed-7cb1242db658","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4551692-4551692","title":"CourtListener opinion 4551692","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the validity or merit of an appeal.\" In re S.J. at ¶ 10. {¶14} The October 25, 2018, DOPO was similar to the DOPO that Husband appealed in C.A. No. 29184, but the latter contained additional information related to the calculation of payments to Wife, the alternate payee. Consistent with Sullivan, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended DOPO while Husband's appeal from the September 25, 2018, DOPO was pending in this Court. The October 25, 2018, DOPO is therefore void and must be vacated. {¶15} Husband's third assignment of error is sustained. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4552475 Extracted reporter citation: 159 U.S. 651. Docket: 29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4552475 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bution between the parties. [Husband] also has a Defined Contribution Plan, the value of which is subject to equitable distribution between the parties in the amount of [$10,041.84]. These plans shall be divided equally between the [Wife] and [Husband], by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The parties agree to divide equally the costs of hiring an outside firm to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. 2 On August 26, 1996, in apparent compliance with this language in the divorce decree requiring the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\"), Wife's attorney submitted, and the trial court entered, two order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r\") addressed Husband's Ohio Police and Fire (\"OPF\") pension.1 Recognizing that a public pension could not be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or equivalent at that time, the order provided: [I]n the event that [Husband's] retirement benefits become subject to direct assignment via a [QDRO] (or the equivalent thereof) at a future date, the parties hereby agree to submit to the administrator of the Pension Fund, a [QDRO], as set forth in Attachment \"A\", which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Order, in order to effectuate the direct distribution of a portion of [Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 1994-10-2283 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: July 29, 2020 CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, William H. Kalbaugh, appeals various orders related to the division of his pension benefits. I. {¶2} Mr. Kalbaugh (\"Husband\") and Deborah Kalbaugh (\"Wife\") divorced in 1995. Their divorce decree addressed the division of Husband's pension as follows: [Husband] has a pension plan with the Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund of Ohio with a value of [$68,496.38]. [Wife] has a Social Security Old Age Benefit Plan with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"822a496d-c514-4732-8925-511be5d720c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552475-4552475","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552475","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH","extracted_reporter_citation":"159 U.S. 651","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the validity or merit of an appeal.\" In re S.J. at ¶ 10. {¶14} The October 25, 2018, DOPO was similar to the DOPO that Husband appealed in C.A. No. 29184, but the latter contained additional information related to the calculation of payments to Wife, the alternate payee. Consistent with Sullivan, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended DOPO while Husband's appeal from the September 25, 2018, DOPO was pending in this Court. The October 25, 2018, DOPO is therefore void and must be vacated. {¶15} Husband's third assignment of error is sustained. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4552847 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of years. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4552847 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e house shall immediately be placed for sale.\" The parties further stipulated, with regard to Gregory's pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\"), that \"[t]he FERS shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO if/when the law changes.\" The pension was listed in the stipulated schedule of Marital Assets and Liabilities as follows: PROPERTY ITEM VALUE/DEBT *** Federal Employees Retirement System Pension (H) $58,461.41 {¶4} As it pertains to the house and Gregory's pension, the trial court ordered as follows in the final divorce decree: IT IS FURTHER ORD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: anuary 9, 2013, via regular U.S. mail at 2597 Townline Rd., Madison, Ohio 44057—the parties' previous marital residence. 2. A COAP is a form of qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") used to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a federal pension retirement plan. 3 {¶7} The COAP explains that \"this Order creates and recognizes the existence of a former spouse's right to receive a portion of the employee's benefits payable under [FERS]. Such benefits may represent a portion of the Employee Annuity, a Refund of Employee Contributions or may award a Survivor Annuity to the former spouse. It is intended to const"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: is the time from the date of marriage on February 25, 1978, to the date of trial on April 23, 2001. Relevant herein, the parties also stipulated that \"the house shall immediately be placed for sale.\" The parties further stipulated, with regard to Gregory's pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\"), that \"[t]he FERS shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO if/when the law changes.\" The pension was listed in the stipulated schedule of Marital Assets and Liabilities as follows: PROPERTY ITEM VALUE/DEBT *** Federal Employees Retirement System Pension (H) $"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bc8a3ec-691c-4d6d-b310-6e37b1bb977e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4552847-4552847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4552847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): v. Reising, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010-CA 92, 2012-Ohio-1097, ¶24. {¶42} The Sixth District case of Borton v. Borton, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-10-003, 2011-Ohio-143, is similar to the facts at hand. There, \"the divorce decree established that the First Energy 401(k), ‘shall be divided equally between the parties on a 50/50 basis, and the parties stipulated a value of $102,000 as of May 6, 2003.'\" Id. at ¶17. Husband contended \"that any amount in excess of $51,000 accrue solely to his benefit and not be shared equally between the parties.\" Id. The Borton Court held as follows: We note simply that the divorce entry"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4556236 Extracted reporter citation: 813 F.2d 1574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556236 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Angelo, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0094, 2013-Ohio-5265, the trial court issued a divorce decree ordering that one half of Mr. Angelo's vested interest in a pension asset \"accrued from May 21, 1988 to November 9, 2002\" be transferred to Ms. Angelo by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at ¶1-2. The original QDRO did so. Id. at ¶3. The trial court subsequently issued an amended QDRO that omitted the words \"accrued from May 21, 1988\" and instead stated \"as of November 9, 2002.\" Id. at ¶5. {¶43} Mr. Angelo filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A), which the trial court granted. Id. at ¶8-9. This cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion for contempt for financial obligations under the decree and sought funds from Mr. Bittner's investment accounts. Id. at ¶7. The trial court ultimately issued an amended QDRO to assign Ms. Bittner a portion of the total account balance for the \"employee retirement plan.\" Id. at ¶10. Based on the name of the plan utilized in the amended QDRO, Fidelity Investments also split the 401(K) plan between the parties. Id. at ¶60. {¶51} Mr. Bittner filed a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A) relating to the above issue and others, which the trial denied. Id. at ¶16, 32. The Fifth District reversed a portion of the trial court's d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 60(A) to be applicable in the context of divorce proceedings. {¶42} For instance, in Angelo v. Angelo, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0094, 2013-Ohio-5265, the trial court issued a divorce decree ordering that one half of Mr. Angelo's vested interest in a pension asset \"accrued from May 21, 1988 to November 9, 2002\" be transferred to Ms. Angelo by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at ¶1-2. The original QDRO did so. Id. at ¶3. The trial court subsequently issued an amended QDRO that omitted the words \"accrued from May 21, 1988\" and instead stated \"as of November 9, 2002.\" Id. at ¶5. {¶43} Mr. Ang"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fc1bf63-5fdc-49f9-a1ac-49abf0082089","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556236-4556236","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556236","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"813 F.2d 1574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): are of Mr. Shaver's pension.\" Id. at ¶20. {¶50} Finally, Mr. Bloom cites Bittner v. Bittner, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 16 CAF 10 0043, 2017-Ohio-7498. In that case, the parties' agreed judgment entry/decree of divorce provided awarded Mr. Bittner all of his 401(K) plan, while Ms. Bittner was to share equally in his profit-sharing plan. Id. at ¶4-5. Subsequently, Fidelity Investments administratively merged the plans. Id. at ¶61. Ms. Bittner filed a motion for contempt for financial obligations under the decree and sought funds from Mr. Bittner's investment accounts. Id. at ¶7. The trial court ultimately issued an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f81136-4125-46d9-8954-c0c582283298","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556565","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4556565 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556565 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f81136-4125-46d9-8954-c0c582283298","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556565","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f8f81136-4125-46d9-8954-c0c582283298","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556565-4556565","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556565","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d in case No. F16906174 that charged defendant with count 1, stalking in violation of a restraining order, from January 19 through February 9, 2016 (§ 646.9, subd. (b)); count 2, criminal threats, on February 9, 2016 (§ 422); count 3, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order, from January 19 through February 9, 2016 (§ 273.6, subd. (a)); and committing the following offenses from April 29 to May 1, 2016: count 4, stalking in violation of a restraining order; count 5, criminal threats; and count 6, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order. It was further alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4556792 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JODIE LYNN DICKEY AND WILLIAM MARK DICKEY Upon the Petition of JODIE LYNN DICKEY. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 19-0097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556792 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ent Accounts. The parties have separate 401(k) retirement accounts. Based on the present value of these accounts minus premarital value, the district court divided the accounts by ordering the husband to transfer $52,000 from his 401(k) to the wife via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Rather than use the present value, the husband asserts the accounts are most equitably divided using the percentage formula set forth in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996).1 We find use of the formula unnecessary in this case, as it involves a defined contribution plan with a known account balance and a known premarital value"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rection 6 that the wife receive the 232 bank shares. Resolving this uncertainty and the husband's argument is not necessary, as the property division in section VI replaces the district court's order that the wife receive 232 bank shares. V. Treatment of Retirement Accounts. The parties have separate 401(k) retirement accounts. Based on the present value of these accounts minus premarital value, the district court divided the accounts by ordering the husband to transfer $52,000 from his 401(k) to the wife via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Rather than use the present value, the husband asserts the account"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t to value or equitably divide without using the formula set forth in that case. 545 N.W.2d at 257; see also In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006) (\"[I]t is normally desirable to divide a 1Benson applied the following formula to divide pension benefits: A fraction is first computed, the numerator being the number of years during the marriage [the employee spouse] accrued benefits under the pension plan . . . and the denominator being the total number of years [the employee spouse's] benefits accrued prior to maturity (i.e., receipt of payments upon retirement). This fraction represents the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2554aad2-ef26-462b-b04c-53c079749e8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4556792-4556792","title":"CourtListener opinion 4556792","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0097","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): of the parties, declining to award spousal support to either party, and declining to award attorney fees to either party. As part of the property division, the district court ordered the husband to transfer numerous shares of bank stock and portions of his 401(k) to the wife and also ordered the husband to pay a property division equalization payment to the wife. The husband appeals. The wife does not cross-appeal, but she requests appellate attorney fees. The husband claims the district court erred by (1) including assets in the marital estate that were not owned by the parties, (2) ordering the transfer of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 45572 Extracted reporter citation: 151 F.3d 396. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 45572 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Plan's fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties toward the Plan when, inter alia, they misallocated under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). VACATED and REMANDED. I. Galvan and Stanley Davis, an SBC employee and Plan participant, divorced in 1995. As part of that process, Galvan acquired an interest in Davis' Plan benefits pursuant to a QDRO, entitling her to fifty percent of his accrued benefits as of 16 March 1995. In November 2000, Davis accepted an early-retirement payment from"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-51214 LAURA GALVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN; SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN; UNIDENTIFIED FIDUCIARIES OF THE SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, each individually; MELLON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (5:04-CV-333) Before BARKSDALE,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Laura Galvan appeals the dismissal, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, of her claims arising under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (ERISA). She contends: SBC Pension Benefit Plan, SBC Communications, Inc. (the Plan's sponsor and coordinator), and Mellon Financial Corporation (the Plan's outside claims administrator) wrongfully deprived her of Plan benefits; and the * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent exc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"09f83119-65a1-4603-af89-31bd5e81c471","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-45572-45572","title":"CourtListener opinion 45572","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"151 F.3d 396","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t reply to Galvan's satisfaction, and further communication between them failed to resolve her concerns. (Among 2 other things, Galvan filed an action in state court, but dismissed the Plan in order to exhaust administrative remedies.) Therefore, as an alternate payee under the Plan, Galvan filed a benefits claim with SBC, which it received on 22 March 2004, approximately three years after Galvan's initial 2001 contact with SBC. In this administrative claim, Galvan asserted: the QDRO entitled her to part of Davis' early-retirement payment; and the Plan's fiduciaries breached various duties in their communications w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3173797-338f-4e4d-bd9e-219e8e33070b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243","title":"CourtListener opinion 4557243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4557243 Extracted case name: J.P. v. J.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3292 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4557243 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3173797-338f-4e4d-bd9e-219e8e33070b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243","title":"CourtListener opinion 4557243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3173797-338f-4e4d-bd9e-219e8e33070b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243","title":"CourtListener opinion 4557243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: motion; and (3) issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of 5/24/19 custody order. ____________________________________________ Rule 1701 refers to Pa.R.C.P. 1930.2, further explained infra, which provides that \"where reconsideration from a domestic relations order has been timely granted, a reconsidered decision or an order directing additional testimony must be entered within 120 days of the entry of the order granting reconsideration or the motion shall be deemed denied.\" Pa.R.A.P. 1701 – Official Note (emphasis added). Moreover, the note states that the \"date from which the appeal period will be measured following"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3173797-338f-4e4d-bd9e-219e8e33070b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4557243-4557243","title":"CourtListener opinion 4557243","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3292 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: taking appeal, trial court must vacate order and grant reconsideration; the mere scheduling of a hearing on the matter is insufficient). Since the order was not vacated and no appeal was filed within 30 days of the entry of the final, appealable order of equitable distribution, this appeal must be quashed as untimely. Id. at 62 (emphasis added). The Karschner Court cited to Schoff for the proposition that the court must vacate the order in addition to granting reconsideration; however, Schoff espoused no such requirement. Schoff states: \"Since reconsideration was not expressly granted within 30 days from the court's September 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4561527 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20A-DC-441 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4561527 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term \"court order acceptable for processing,\" used by the United States Office of Personnel Management, is essentially synonymous with what is more commonly referred to in Indiana as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-441 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 10 [5] On July 11, 2018, Michael filed a motion to set aside the COAP and a motion to stay the distributions to Pamela. On March 29, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding, in relevant part, as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdicti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eir respective shares of Michael's FERS benefit: By court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 80% of 199 months of service during the marriage divided by 337 months of Federal service or 47.24% of your former spouse's retirement benefit. The marital shares times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $7,180 provides for a $3,391.83 monthly payment for you. This includes the FERS Supplement of $1377; which may end at any time reducing your share of your former spouse's retirement annuity. Id. at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term \"court order acceptable for processing,\" used"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: between Pamela and Michael; it later entered an amended decree following Michael's motion to correct errors. During and after the parties' marriage, Michael was employed as an air traffic controller for the FAA. Part of his compensation was a retirement pension. [3] In the amended dissolution decree, the trial court held that Michael's FAA pension was a marital asset but that the parties did not, at that time, know the value of the pension. The trial court ordered that Pamela would receive \"80% of [Michael's] pension as of 12/31/06[.]\"1 Tr. Ex. Vol. p. 56. On February 9, 1 There was some debate over the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34b64e7-7e0f-4977-a349-68e3440f7fbc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561527-4561527","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561527","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-441 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: retirement annuity. Id. at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term \"court order acceptable for processing,\" used by the United States Office of Personnel Management, is essentially synonymous with what is more commonly referred to in Indiana as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-441 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 10 [5] On July 11, 2018, Michael filed a motion to set aside the COAP and a motion to stay the distributions to Pamela. On March 29, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding, in relevant part, as follows: 1. The Court has juri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4561989 Extracted reporter citation: 575 A.2d 550. Docket: 991 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4561989 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ties agree that the Court will decide how to distribute this asset with the provisions as stated. The parties agree that if the contribution formula is enhanced to account for prior service or if the benefit is enhanced that reflects prior service, that a QDRO[1] or DRO[2] will be entered to pay ___ % (as the court determines for equitable distribution[)] of the marital value to Wife. . . . The parties agree also to QDRO or DRO any other U.S. Air benefit created after the date of separation that is based in any part on service during the marriage. Coverture to be calculated using the appropriate number of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A03024-19 April 1983, during the marriage and after the separation and divorce, until his retirement in May 2015. Id. at 47. US Air entered bankruptcy in August 2002, which adversely affected its pilots' retirement plan. N.T., 1/23/07, at 103, 105–106; N.T., 3/1/07, at 119, 153–154. As part of its restructuring, US Air negotiated and entered multiple agreements with its pilots. Specifically, Letter of Agreement (\"LOA\") 85, known as Pilots' Defined Contribution Plan, terminated the existing US Air retirement benefits plan as of March 31, 2003, and created a defined con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: me the [QDROs] were prepared and submitted and the docket clearly [reflects] that. Why this remains a problem for Wife appears to be that she has the unrealistic expectation that she is entitled to a share of Husband's post-separation contributions to his pension. This is not the law in Pennsylvania. Wife has incurred counsel fees of over $34,000 in pursuing matters which were resolved in 2008. She has received her 401(k) award, is receiving her share of the US Airways pension . . . and knew that the Target benefit Plan had replaced the Savings Plan. . . . Husband's Brief at 58–59 (citing Master's Report and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9dedef9-825f-45ed-877a-a1c84409c9cf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4561989-4561989","title":"CourtListener opinion 4561989","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"991 WDA 2018","extracted_reporter_citation":"575 A.2d 550","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): uring, US Air negotiated and entered multiple agreements with its pilots. Specifically, Letter of Agreement (\"LOA\") 85, known as Pilots' Defined Contribution Plan, terminated the existing US Air retirement benefits plan as of March 31, 2003, and created a defined contribution plan (\"DC Plan\"), which had an effective date of April 1, 2003, and was funded entirely by US Airways. LOA 85 at 2; Summary Plan Description, 1/1/05, at 1; N.T., 12/9/15, at 84– 85, 90–94. The previous plan was a defined benefit plan known as the \"Target Plan for Pilots of US Airways, Inc.\" (\"Target Plan\") and was discontinued during the US Airways ban"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4563638 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1411 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4563638 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthly distribution—rather than requiring an immediate offset wherein she would be paid half of the present value of the pension from the marital estate. She also claims the court erred when it ordered that Husband pay only $350 in monthly alimony, and when it did not remand to the divorce master to allow Wife an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: County Civil Division at No(s): CI-15-06601 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2020 In these cross-appeals, Marietta Ost, Wife, and David E. Ost, Husband, contest aspects of the domestic relations order entered on August 20, 2019, which set forth the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ermine which method would best effectuate economic justice between the parties. Conner, 217 A.3d at 312 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Here, the trial court found that because the FERS pension is already in pay status and Wife waived her right to a survivor annuity, the deferred distribution method will achieve a more equitable result. The court recognized that sharing both the TSP and FERS pension spreads the risk between both parties. The court stated that it \"does not find it to be equitable that Husband should lose the TSP and be forced to have [to] wait on a monthly payment of $3488 so that Wife can have $4"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9896388-7a5d-4944-986a-4b22ddaabc17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4563638-4563638","title":"CourtListener opinion 4563638","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1411 MDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2020 In these cross-appeals, Marietta Ost, Wife, and David E. Ost, Husband, contest aspects of the domestic relations order entered on August 20, 2019, which set forth the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthly distribution—rather than requiring an immediate offset wherein she would be pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4565168 Extracted case name: LOIS R. STILKEY v. ELIZABETH A. ZEMBKO. Extracted reporter citation: 18 A.3d 604. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4565168 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ts memorandum of decision or otherwise gleaned from the record, are relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. The defendant, an attorney, represented Stilkey in her 2003 divorce. As part of the dissolution action, Stilkey and her former husband executed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO),2 under which Stilkey received a 50 percent interest in his Iron Workers' Local 15 and 424 Annuity Fund. The QDRO contained confidential information, including Stilkey's Social Security number, date of birth, home address and telephone number. The defendant had access to all of the confidential information con- tained in the QDRO. Stilkey's QDRO fun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: * LOIS R. STILKEY v. ELIZABETH A. ZEMBKO (AC 42410) DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Flynn, Js.* Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for statutory theft in connection with her actions in withdrawing certain funds from a retirement account belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant had pre- viously represented the plaintiff in her divorce proceedings, as a result of which the plaintiff received one half of her former husband's pension funds, which were subsequently placed in an individual retirement account. Through the defendant's representation of the plaintiff, she obtained confidentia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: her actions in withdrawing certain funds from a retirement account belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant had pre- viously represented the plaintiff in her divorce proceedings, as a result of which the plaintiff received one half of her former husband's pension funds, which were subsequently placed in an individual retirement account. Through the defendant's representation of the plaintiff, she obtained confidential information about the plaintiff and used it to with- draw money from the account without the plaintiff's knowledge or permission over a period of three years. In the defendant's answer, she raise"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3661f84b-d85f-4c6f-9370-fb4c42a05dbe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565168-4565168","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565168","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 A.3d 604","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dum of decision or otherwise gleaned from the record, are relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. The defendant, an attorney, represented Stilkey in her 2003 divorce. As part of the dissolution action, Stilkey and her former husband executed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO),2 under which Stilkey received a 50 percent interest in his Iron Workers' Local 15 and 424 Annuity Fund. The QDRO contained confidential information, including Stilkey's Social Security number, date of birth, home address and telephone number. The defendant had access to all of the confidential information con- tained in the QDRO. Stilkey's QDRO fun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4565171 Extracted case name: NANCY GIORDANO v. RAY GIORDANO. Extracted reporter citation: 111 A.3d 551. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4565171 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ' 8 At the dissolution hearing, the following exchange occurred between the defendant and his counsel on redirect examination: ‘‘Q. . . . [P]ursuant to paragraph 2.7, you are dividing your GE pension plan. Correct? ‘‘A. The base plan that is subject to a [qualified domestic relations order]? ‘‘Q. Yes. ‘‘A. Yes. ‘‘Q. Okay. And you understand that that's just the base plan and it does not include the supplemental pension plans? ‘‘A. That's correct. ‘‘Q. Okay.'' 9 At the dissolution hearing, counsel for both parties and the court engaged in the following colloquy: ‘‘[The Defendant's Counsel]: . . . So, just to be clear they're agreeing t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t additionally found the defendant in con- tempt for his failure to pay alimony, and this appeal followed. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in interpreting the separation agreement to include his supplemental pension as a basis for a modification of alimony, which was based on his claim that the agreement unambiguously did not include that pension as part of gross annual compensation: the court correctly determined that the alimony provision was ambiguous, and correctly interpreted ‘‘gross annual compensation'' as including the supplemental pension; moreover, the l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): in cash, by check or by electronic transfer before any deductions, including, but not necessarily limited to, federal, state or municipal income taxes, social security, Medicare, insurance of any kind, or payments made voluntarily by the [defen- dant] to any defined contribution plan, e.g., a 401 (k) plan or qualified savings plan. ‘Gross annual compensa- tion' shall also include income voluntarily deferred by the [defendant] under a deferred compensation or simi- lar plan and . . . any payments from disability insur- ance. Any court of competent jurisdiction, upon the motion of either party, shall retain jurisdiction to modify al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0b6d7e3-1815-4ab3-ad90-3598ea828067","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4565171-4565171","title":"CourtListener opinion 4565171","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"111 A.3d 551","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he dissolution hearing, the following exchange occurred between the defendant and his counsel on redirect examination: ‘‘Q. . . . [P]ursuant to paragraph 2.7, you are dividing your GE pension plan. Correct? ‘‘A. The base plan that is subject to a [qualified domestic relations order]? ‘‘Q. Yes. ‘‘A. Yes. ‘‘Q. Okay. And you understand that that's just the base plan and it does not include the supplemental pension plans? ‘‘A. That's correct. ‘‘Q. Okay.'' 9 At the dissolution hearing, counsel for both parties and the court engaged in the following colloquy: ‘‘[The Defendant's Counsel]: . . . So, just to be clear they're agreeing t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4566216 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DAVID MICHAEL. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4566216 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced in preparing QDROs, who would prepare the orders and obtain approval from the respective plans. The family court retained jurisdiction over the preparation or amendment of any QDROs. It also retained jurisdiction to make orders and determinations to enforce the terms of the judgment, resolve disputes c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rt also made a series of related orders, including an order for David to pay spousal and child support, an order directing the parties to share uninsured medical expenses and childcare costs, and orders regarding the family home and Sue and David's respective retirement plans. Sue filed a motion for new trial in May 2016. The court issued a minute order denying that motion in early July, and David filed and served a notice of ruling a few days later. The family court entered the judgment of dissolution on October 12, 2016. Regarding the parties' pension and defined benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ion for new trial in May 2016. The court issued a minute order denying that motion in early July, and David filed and served a notice of ruling a few days later. The family court entered the judgment of dissolution on October 12, 2016. Regarding the parties' pension and defined benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5b156c3d-e5ec-4a80-8241-035558903257","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4566216-4566216","title":"CourtListener opinion 4566216","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced in preparing QDROs, who would prepare the orders and obtain approval from the respective plans. The family court retained jurisdiction over the preparation or amendment of any QDROs. It also retained jurisdiction to make orders and determinations to enforce the terms of the judgment, resolve disp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4568648 Extracted case name: MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MIKE MCKOWN. Extracted reporter citation: 712 S.W.2d 947. Docket: 2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4568648 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the value assigned by the Property Valuation Administration (\"PVA\"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the \"401k\") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for dissolution and not the date of the divorce decree. Finally, the trial court found that David had sold thirteen hogs that had been acquired during the marriag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): chose to list the property for sale. The court further found that the fair market value of such property was $200,000.00 based on the value assigned by the Property Valuation Administration (\"PVA\"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the \"401k\") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: assigned by the Property Valuation Administration (\"PVA\"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the \"401k\") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for dissolution and not the date of the divorce decree. Finally, the trial court found that David had sold thirteen hogs that had been acquired during the marriag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaa36cd4-d247-446c-a6a7-093b1bc888d0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4568648-4568648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4568648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"712 S.W.2d 947","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: NE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: David Ferrell Byrd (\"David\") appeals from the Metcalfe Circuit Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, arguing that the trial court made certain mistakes as to its award of maintenance, its property division, and its award of attorney's fees. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. BACKGROUND David and Joanna Byrd (\"Joanna\") were married in August of 1996, and Joanna filed a petition for dissolution on October 4, 2016. At the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution, Joanna was fifty years of age and listed her occupation as h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2e108ec-5558-4c84-9239-07766a4dac51","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686","title":"CourtListener opinion 4570686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-317 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 N.E.2d 951","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4570686 Extracted case name: D.C. v. J.A.C. Extracted reporter citation: 977 N.E.2d 951. Docket: 20A-DR-317 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4570686 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2e108ec-5558-4c84-9239-07766a4dac51","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686","title":"CourtListener opinion 4570686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-317 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 N.E.2d 951","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2e108ec-5558-4c84-9239-07766a4dac51","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686","title":"CourtListener opinion 4570686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-317 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 N.E.2d 951","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: is improper. Therefore, the presumption should remain. *** 50. . . . In order to effectuate an equal division of property, [Husband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $168,506.14 within 60 days of this Decree. [Wife's] counsel shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar order, in order to transfer the equalization payment. [Husband] shall cooperate in all respects with the preparation of such order . . . . *** 53. The Court finds that an award of attorney fees is proper. The Court finds that [Wife] has prolonged the litigation in this case substantially and without cause. The bulk of testimony and evid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e2e108ec-5558-4c84-9239-07766a4dac51","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4570686-4570686","title":"CourtListener opinion 4570686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-317 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"977 N.E.2d 951","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r. Therefore, the presumption should remain. *** 50. . . . In order to effectuate an equal division of property, [Husband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $168,506.14 within 60 days of this Decree. [Wife's] counsel shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar order, in order to transfer the equalization payment. [Husband] shall cooperate in all respects with the preparation of such order . . . . *** 53. The Court finds that an award of attorney fees is proper. The Court finds that [Wife] has prolonged the litigation in this case substantially and without cause. The bulk of testimony and evid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4571226 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 49 N.E.3d 1065. Docket: 20A-DR-338 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4571226 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a Cathy Sue Valenti (Wife) was dissolved in September 2004, and, as part of their Marital Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), Wife was to receive a portion of Husband's pension plan to be effectuated pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2018, after Husband began receiving benefits, he filed a Motion for Clarification regarding the Agreement and QDRO, asserting that ambiguity existed and asking the court to issue an amended QDRO. The trial court denied Husband's motion and awarded attorney's fees to Wife. Husband appeals and raises two issues that we restate as: I. Did the tr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ellant's Appendix at 19. [4] In Paragraphs 19(h) and 21(h) of the Agreement, Wife and Husband, respectively, received as their separate property, the following asset: One-half (1/2) of the marital coverture value[ 1] of Husband's ITT Industries Salaried Retirement Plan. Said transfer of funds shall be accomplished by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by Wife's counsel and approved by the Court[.] Id. at 25, 26. [5] At Paragraph 30, Husband and Wife agreed to execute \"such additional documents as may be necessary to carry out the terms and intent of this Agreement[,]\" and at Paragraph 32, the parties s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Case Summary [1] The marriage of Scott David Luce (Husband) and Cathy Sue Luce n/k/a Cathy Sue Valenti (Wife) was dissolved in September 2004, and, as part of their Marital Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), Wife was to receive a portion of Husband's pension plan to be effectuated pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2018, after Husband began receiving benefits, he filed a Motion for Clarification regarding the Agreement and QDRO, asserting that ambiguity existed and asking the court to issue an amended QDRO. The trial court denied Husband's motion and awarded attorney's fees to W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d12c20-5265-4204-b889-132537e8b37b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4571226-4571226","title":"CourtListener opinion 4571226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DR-338 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"49 N.E.3d 1065","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 004, Husband and Wife submitted to the trial court a QDRO, which had been signed by each of them. Paragraph 7 of the QDRO provides for the portion of Husband's ITT Industries Salaried Retirement Plan (the Plan) to be paid to Wife and states: Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of fifty percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marital Portion of the Participant's accrue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4574826 Extracted case name: N.A.M. v. M.P.W. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 2453 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4574826 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er the entry of a Qualified ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan (\"pension\"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants (\"PAC\") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan (\"pension\"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants (\"PAC\") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contempt. 1 Judge Daniele moved to senior judge status in 2019 and this case was administratively"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ___________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [(\"QDRO\")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan (\"pension\"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants (\"PAC\") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contempt. 1 Judge Daniele moved to senior judge status in 2019 and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c1dea62-a2f1-4d15-8650-317011337da5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4574826-4574826","title":"CourtListener opinion 4574826","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2453 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: )[.] This court also ordered [W]ife, within five days, to provide proof to the court, filed of record, of her having paid ____________________________________________ 2 \"A QDRO . . . is a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the [pension] plan.\" Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015). -2- J-A10020-20 her portion of the outstanding fees. Id. This court cautioned [Wife] that a failure to provide proof of payment would result in the court sua sponte dismissing her petition for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"072c4370-7261-4023-b522-0cdf2de374af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028","title":"CourtListener opinion 4577028","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4577028 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4577028 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"072c4370-7261-4023-b522-0cdf2de374af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028","title":"CourtListener opinion 4577028","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"072c4370-7261-4023-b522-0cdf2de374af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028","title":"CourtListener opinion 4577028","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Clients agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"072c4370-7261-4023-b522-0cdf2de374af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028","title":"CourtListener opinion 4577028","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"072c4370-7261-4023-b522-0cdf2de374af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4577028-4577028","title":"CourtListener opinion 4577028","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Agreement on {Date} _____________________. 9. The parties have resolved all issues with regard to the dissolution of their marriage through their Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement including parental responsibility and timesharing of their children, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorneys' fees. 10. The Court should ratify and confirm the parties' Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement. 11. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent wishes to be restored to her former name of _______________. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent has never been convicted of a felony, has never been adjudicated bankrupt, is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4580132 Docket: 28848 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4580132 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: this case, the Decree also awarded Lisa an interest in Brendan's Military retirement benefit, which was in payout status. Brendan was to pay Lisa her share directly until DFAS received a Military Retired pay Division Order, which was to be prepared by a QDRO group. Lisa was awarded 46.52% of Brendan's disposable military retired pay. This deviated from the 50% she was entitled to, as she is responsible for the Survivor Benefit Premium. The Decree further stated that \"both parties shall cooperate in executing any [and] all documents required by the military to insure both parties receive all benefits t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: conducting its own independent, de novo review, the trial court first addressed the retirement-pay issue. Reviewing the parties' divorce decree, the trial court noted: Relevant to this case, the Decree also awarded Lisa an interest in Brendan's Military retirement benefit, which was in payout status. Brendan was to pay Lisa her share directly until DFAS received a Military Retired pay Division Order, which was to be prepared by a QDRO group. Lisa was awarded 46.52% of Brendan's disposable military retired pay. This deviated from the 50% she was entitled to, as she is responsible for the Survivor Benefit Premium. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: able retired pay. But the trial court's calculations fail to support that assertion. He also suggests that Lisa has not paid the \"survivor benefit premium\" as required. Under the terms of the divorce decree, however, Lisa's percentage of Brendan's military pension was reduced from 50 percent to 46.52 percent to account for her obligation to pay that premium. Thus, Lisa is paying the premium through this -12- reduction. Brendan further argues that this deduction of 3.48 percent does not cover the full cost of the premium. But Brendan consented to this percentage when he signed the agreed divorce decree containing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7691b609-5433-4948-9c14-d4f545e5a85e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4580132-4580132","title":"CourtListener opinion 4580132","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28848 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: is entitled\" minus certain listed deductions. After finding no evidence that any specified deductions applied, the trial court reasoned: * * * Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 indicates that Brendan's gross pay is $3071.00 per month. $199.95 is deducted for SBP, \"Survivor Benefit\" that Lisa is responsible for. Lisa's share was reduced from 50% to 46.52% to allow for that responsibility. Lisa's portion of the $3071.00 monthly benefit is $1428.02 per month, which is 46.52% of the gross pay. As Lisa's percentage has already been reduced because of the SBP payment, that amount is not deducted before applying the percentages."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4581089 Extracted reporter citation: 371 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4581089 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n. On December 10, 1999, the trial court issued a judgment that terminated the parties' marriage and approved their Separation Agreement, which included, inter alia, a provision that \"[e]ach party shall get 50% of the General Electric Pension by means of a QDRO between the parties.\" {¶ 3} On July 31, 2003, appellant filed a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities and sought to be designated residential parent of their minor child because appellee had \"confessed to having sexual intercourse with the parties' [then emancipated] son, 2 We observe that appellant's brief does not comply with Appell"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ently hospitalized in the Athens Mental Health Facility.\" The trial court designated appellant as W's residential parent and legal custodian, effective July 31, 2003. {¶ 4} On June 2, 2019, appellee filed a motion to implement the division of appellant's retirement benefits. Appellee pointed out that the December 10, 1999 decree required the division of appellant's General Electric retirement benefits from his date of employment to December 10, 1999. Appellee further stated that, since the filing of the decree, no action has been taken to implement the court's order. Thus, appellee sought an order: (1) to prohibit appella"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and have three children. On December 10, 1999, the trial court issued a judgment that terminated the parties' marriage and approved their Separation Agreement, which included, inter alia, a provision that \"[e]ach party shall get 50% of the General Electric Pension by means of a QDRO between the parties.\" {¶ 3} On July 31, 2003, appellant filed a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities and sought to be designated residential parent of their minor child because appellee had \"confessed to having sexual intercourse with the parties' [then emancipated] son, 2 We observe that appellant's brief does no"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"824268bd-758e-4401-8316-1940a886cd73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581089-4581089","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581089","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"371 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: pra. {¶ 14} We also disagree with appellant's contention that the ODRO constitutes a \"new proceeding\" and constitutes a \"final judgment.\" \"[A] QDRO is different from the usual court order. A QDRO is an order that ‘creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'\" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, 922 N.E.2d 214, ¶ 18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(l), Title 29, U.S. Code, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4581811 Extracted reporter citation: 25 N.E.3d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4581811 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e trial court abused its discretion in failing to divide the marital debts and assets equally. She raises six issues with respect to this assigned error. A. Retirement Assets Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that a qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.9"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.92. From these numbers, the trial court found that wife was entitled to $19,690.14 from husband's retirement account. R.C. 3107.171(A)(3)(a)(ii) states that marital property is the interest that either spouse currently has in \"the retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: an award for that either. In Weller v. Weller, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2001-G-2370, 2002-Ohio- 7125, the Eleventh District explained: [S]everal Ohio appellate districts have determined that accrued sick leave benefits resemble deferred bonus payments or pension plan accumulations and, as such, qualify as an interest in property subject to division as a marital asset under R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(ii). Herrmann v. Herrmann (Nov. 6, 2000), 12th Dist. Nos. CA99-01-006 and CA99-01-011, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5146, *9; Hartley v. Hartley (Apr. 24, 1998), 2d Dist. No. 16668, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1745, *3-4; Pearson v."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83063bdb-55b2-4ee8-b7fc-71823a034e2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4581811-4581811","title":"CourtListener opinion 4581811","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"25 N.E.3d 371","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): arital debts and assets equally. She raises six issues with respect to this assigned error. A. Retirement Assets Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that a qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.92. From these numbers, the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f4a47b-a75a-458e-a609-2f4c5376ef43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4582452","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4582452 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of JOANNE and. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4582452 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f4a47b-a75a-458e-a609-2f4c5376ef43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4582452","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f4a47b-a75a-458e-a609-2f4c5376ef43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4582452","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y Richard, reserving jurisdiction as to the amount. They agreed each party would pay his or her own attorney's fees and costs through the date of the agreement. The parties elected to retain Elizabeth Strasen (Strasen) to divide the community portion of their retirement accounts. They also agreed each party would receive a distribution from their E-Trade account, they would divide certain investments equally, and Richard would pay Joanne $140,000 to \"equalize\" all breach of fiduciary duty claims each party had against the other. The September 2016 agreement required each party to sign any necessary documents to carry out the agre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f4a47b-a75a-458e-a609-2f4c5376ef43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4582452","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: not require a signature. Richard contended Joanne was simply attempting to stall the division of the account. He asked the court to appoint the clerk of the court or other agent to sign the necessary documents to divide the investments, to sign the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders prepared by Strasen, and to sign the necessary forms to divide the E-Trade account, on Joanne's behalf. Richard asked the trial court to sanction Joanne \"in an amount that represents the portion of [his] attorneys' fees and costs incurred on these issues from September 28, 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a5f4a47b-a75a-458e-a609-2f4c5376ef43","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4582452-4582452","title":"CourtListener opinion 4582452","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: r month in average gross income from his salary, bonuses, and investment income. At trial, Richard clarified that his bonus income was not guaranteed. In his IED, Richard estimated he had $1.4 million in assets, including his separate property and half of the community property. However, of that, $250,000 in stocks and other assets he could \"easily sell\" was restricted by court order, except for $40,000; the court would not allow access to these accounts without an additional court order. In addition, he claimed $1.1 million in other property, including retirement accounts and restricted stock. Notably, these were to be divided wi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4583604 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THOMAS DEAN NICHOLS AND TERESA LORRAINE NICHOLS Upon the Petition of THOMAS DEAN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20-0556. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4583604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dissolution decree memorialized Thomas's agreement that one-half of his Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension \"benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to\" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval \"to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation.\" The court directed the following calculation: [Teresa] shall receive 50 percent of a fraction of [Thomas's] pension and pension payments. The numerator of this fraction shall b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pension \"benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to\" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval \"to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation.\" The court directed the following calculation: [Teresa] shall receive 50 percent of a fraction of [Thomas's] pension and pension payments. The numerator of this fraction shall be the number of years [Thomas] contributed to IPERS during the marriage, and the denominator of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and Teresa Johnson married on October 20, 1984. They separated on October 16, 1995, and the marriage was dissolved on May 19, 1997. The dissolution decree memorialized Thomas's agreement that one-half of his Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension \"benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to\" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval \"to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation.\" The court dire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e142a8-ce7a-4d46-978f-e49bf5614155","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4583604-4583604","title":"CourtListener opinion 4583604","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0556","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge. Thomas Nichols appeals the denial of his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Kevin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Jamie L. Schroeder of The Sayer Law Group, P.C., Waterloo, for appellee. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ. Bower, C.J., takes no part. 2 MULLINS, Judge. Thomas Nichols and Teresa Johnson married on October 20, 1984"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f529734-5644-40eb-b2cf-f322f1dda2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457","title":"CourtListener opinion 4585457","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4585457 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4585457 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f529734-5644-40eb-b2cf-f322f1dda2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457","title":"CourtListener opinion 4585457","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f529734-5644-40eb-b2cf-f322f1dda2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457","title":"CourtListener opinion 4585457","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e Clients agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f529734-5644-40eb-b2cf-f322f1dda2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457","title":"CourtListener opinion 4585457","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f529734-5644-40eb-b2cf-f322f1dda2c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4585457-4585457","title":"CourtListener opinion 4585457","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Agreement on {Date} _____________________. 9. The parties have resolved all issues with regard to the dissolution of their marriage through their Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement including parental responsibility and timesharing of their children, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorneys' fees. 10. The Court should ratify and confirm the parties' Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement. 11. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent wishes to be restored to her former name of _______________. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent has never been convicted of a felony, has never been adjudicated bankrupt, is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b18e4eef-fb33-4e26-b128-569809fcc642","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586529","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4586529 Extracted case name: APPENDIX STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. PETER SEBBEN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4586529 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b18e4eef-fb33-4e26-b128-569809fcc642","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586529","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b18e4eef-fb33-4e26-b128-569809fcc642","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586529","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , the defendant further argues that he is being unfairly targeted and that the plaintiff has not sought reimbursement for the cost of incarceration from other inmates. He contends that he is being tar- geted because, inter alia, the defendant has a home and a pension; was a state employee and a ‘‘minority inmate''; does not use ‘‘entitlement services''; is of retire- ment age; and was involved in an infamous crime. In support of his argument, the defendant provides a table entitled ‘‘Collected Incarceration Costs'' from 2011 to 2015 and a printout of Assistant Attorney General Judith Brown's case list from the Judicial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b18e4eef-fb33-4e26-b128-569809fcc642","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586529","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ction 18-85a and regulations adopted in accordance with section 18-85a from any federal, state or municipal pension, annuity or insurance contract or similar arrangement described in subdivision (5) of subsection (a) of this section, provided the rights of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in Section 414 (p) of the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, shall take precedence over any such recovery. . . .''"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b18e4eef-fb33-4e26-b128-569809fcc642","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586529-4586529","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586529","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed in accordance with section 18-85a from any federal, state or municipal pension, annuity or insurance contract or similar arrangement described in subdivision (5) of subsection (a) of this section, provided the rights of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in Section 414 (p) of the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, shall take precedence over any such recovery. . . .''"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4586532 Extracted case name: ALINA LEONOVA v. STANISLAV LEONOV. Extracted reporter citation: 908 A.2d 1119. Docket: of postdissolution motions. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4586532 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan worth $167,139 and a Fidelity individual retirement account, worth $5779. The parties each were ordered responsible for the cost of their leased automobiles and for any debt on their respective financial affidavits not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed a Citibank account containing the $63,000 escrowed balance of the defendant's 2017 bonus income, a Chase Bank account containing $11,000 and an HSBC check- ing account.9 The parties were allowed to retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): se accounts included a Citibank account containing the $63,000 escrowed balance of the defendant's 2017 bonus income, a Chase Bank account containing $11,000 and an HSBC check- ing account.9 The parties were allowed to retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its ent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d57237e-db06-4d13-a23c-3ccdc952f706","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4586532-4586532","title":"CourtListener opinion 4586532","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of postdissolution motions","extracted_reporter_citation":"908 A.2d 1119","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan worth $167,139 and a Fidelity individual retirement account, worth $5779. The parties each were ordered responsible for the cost of their leased automobiles and for any debt on their respective financial affidavits not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4635999 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Budorick. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4635999 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ployer's guidelines prohibiting her from transferring the stock to anyone outside of the specified corporate entities by awarding Daniel his share of the stock's value, rather than the stock itself. ¶ 53 Daniel's arguments that the court should have used a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to turn over the stock shares to him or divide the stock in accordance with a \"reserved jurisdiction\" approach, are likewise unavailing. With regard to Daniel's argument that the court should have used a QDRO to effectuate its order dividing the JDS stock, it is premised on the assumption that the trial court awarded Daniel shares of JDS stock an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ues in August and September 2018. The court entered a judgment for dissolution on November 28, 2018, and a modified judgment for dissolution on April 10, 2019. Daniel appeals from both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) classifying Heather's retirement accounts from her employment in California as nonmarital property, (2) classifying and valuing Heather's shares in certain restricted stock, (3) valuing Heather's and Daniel's retirement accounts at different points in time, (4) requiring Daniel to pay $50,000 in attorney fees, (5) calculating Heather's gross income for child support purposes, (6) apportioning"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ember 3, 1995, in California. Prior to their marriage, beginning in July 1991, Heather worked as a nurse for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center (USC). During her employment, Heather participated in the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association pension program (LACERA pension), and also contributed to a retirement plan for government employees (L.A. County 457 Plan). Her contributions to the LACERA pension occurred both pre- and post-marriage. The interest from her contributions continued to grow following the marriage. Heather took two leaves from her employment at the hospital before terminating her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"788ad44c-4f7e-46a8-a2a8-b5ec9464b0b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4635999-4635999","title":"CourtListener opinion 4635999","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): for Hollister, Inc., a manufacturer of medical products. During her employment with Hollister, she participated in two retirement plans. The first plan, HolliShare, consists solely of contributions made by Hollister, while the second plan is a traditional 401(k) plan that allows for employee contributions (Hollister 401(k) Plan). Heather testified that -2- 1-19-0994 & 1-19-1539 (consolidated) she is only permitted to access HolliShare funds when she ends her employment with Hollister or when she retires. In August 2002, Heather rolled over $6,663.50 from her L.A. County 457 Plan to the Hollister 401(k) Plan."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4638126 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTI ANN FERRIS AND JOEL DAVID FERRIS Upon the Petition of CHRISTI ANN FERRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 912 N.W.2d 444. Docket: 20-0266. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4638126 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: awarded her 2015 Nissan, and Joel his 2017 Silverado, each as sole property. The district court also ordered \"that the pensions and deferred compensation annuities are to be divided as agreed by the parties and in accordance with the applicable law under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be drafted by petitioner's attorney for signature by the court.\" The court specified that order following motions to amend from both parties pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). In its fact findings, the district court valued Michigan farmland owned by the couple and awarded it to Joel.2 Joel appeals and Christi cross-appeals."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s the parent \"most likely to bring [the children] to health, both physically and mentally, 8 and to social maturity.\" See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We therefore affirm the award of physical care to Christi. B. Pension Accounts Christi has an Equistar Retirement Plan and Joel has a John Deere Pension Plan. Each is a defined-benefit pension plan. The district court awarded each party their own pension account.3 In retirement, Joel will receive $2062.96 a month and Christi will receive about $320.00.4 Christi argues the district court should have divided the pension accounts pursuant to our supreme court's calculation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: gree with the district court that Christi is the parent \"most likely to bring [the children] to health, both physically and mentally, 8 and to social maturity.\" See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We therefore affirm the award of physical care to Christi. B. Pension Accounts Christi has an Equistar Retirement Plan and Joel has a John Deere Pension Plan. Each is a defined-benefit pension plan. The district court awarded each party their own pension account.3 In retirement, Joel will receive $2062.96 a month and Christi will receive about $320.00.4 Christi argues the district court should have divided the pension a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"105e1702-52a4-4d60-9317-073987e0dc85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4638126-4638126","title":"CourtListener opinion 4638126","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0266","extracted_reporter_citation":"912 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r 2015 Nissan, and Joel his 2017 Silverado, each as sole property. The district court also ordered \"that the pensions and deferred compensation annuities are to be divided as agreed by the parties and in accordance with the applicable law under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be drafted by petitioner's attorney for signature by the court.\" The court specified that order following motions to amend from both parties pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). In its fact findings, the district court valued Michigan farmland owned by the couple and awarded it to Joel.2 Joel appeals and Christi cross-appeals."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e065d78-3f2d-425d-a9f5-b65e9782ba56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424","title":"CourtListener opinion 4640424","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-192","extracted_reporter_citation":"744 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4640424 Extracted reporter citation: 744 N.W.2d 444. Docket: A-20-192. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4640424 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e065d78-3f2d-425d-a9f5-b65e9782ba56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424","title":"CourtListener opinion 4640424","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-192","extracted_reporter_citation":"744 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e065d78-3f2d-425d-a9f5-b65e9782ba56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424","title":"CourtListener opinion 4640424","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-192","extracted_reporter_citation":"744 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: VIOUS PROCEEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephanie in July 2004, the district court foun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e065d78-3f2d-425d-a9f5-b65e9782ba56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424","title":"CourtListener opinion 4640424","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-192","extracted_reporter_citation":"744 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: DIVORCE DECREE AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephani"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e065d78-3f2d-425d-a9f5-b65e9782ba56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4640424-4640424","title":"CourtListener opinion 4640424","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-192","extracted_reporter_citation":"744 N.W.2d 444","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: EEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephanie in July 2004, the district court foun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d4b0f8-cbca-49aa-b239-39815efa9d40","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777","title":"CourtListener opinion 4641777","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4641777 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4641777 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d4b0f8-cbca-49aa-b239-39815efa9d40","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777","title":"CourtListener opinion 4641777","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"02d4b0f8-cbca-49aa-b239-39815efa9d40","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4641777-4641777","title":"CourtListener opinion 4641777","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: commenced a civil rights action in the District Court relating to his divorce proceedings in Erie County, Pennsylvania. According to Ke, counsel for the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) conspired with his ex-wife's counsel to obtain a domestic relations order (DRO) that unlawfully deprived Ke of 50% of his monthly disability benefits. Specifically, in his pro se complaint, Ke claimed that: (1) SERS violated his due process rights by failing to notify him that his ex- wife's counsel had submitted an unexecuted draft DRO; (2) SERS violated his equal protection rights by failing to ensure that his disability wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4642138 Extracted reporter citation: 898 A.2d 1141. Docket: 236 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4642138 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t [Appellant] pay Wife said sum each month for the duration of his lifetime, plus $500.00 per month towards the -3- J-A28017-20 liquidation of the arrearages. It was further recommended by the special master that since the award would not qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), that it be collected and paid to Wife through the Domestic Relations Department [(DRD)] as if it were support, and paid by the issuance of a wage attachment. [In October 2019, Appellant] filed objections and exceptions to the second [report]. . . . [The trial] court heard argument on those objections and exceptions, as well as a supplemental"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eding in this county.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1/17/20, at 1. J-A28017-20 his heart attack, he was short of the 25 years by 9 months, and was 9 years short of reaching age 55. Consequently, [Appellant] would have had to wait in order to receive any retirement benefits until he reached the required age. [Appellant] asserts that there would have been no ability to receive anything for the 24-plus years of service; however, that matter was disputed. . . . The special master made a determination that the waiver of the defined benefit plan allowed [Appellant's] employer to essentially convert the monies that had been i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: owever, that matter was disputed. . . . The special master made a determination that the waiver of the defined benefit plan allowed [Appellant's] employer to essentially convert the monies that had been in the defined benefit plan to the police disability pension fund, and therefore, there was a retirement component in the disability policy. That retirement component was calculated based upon the 24-plus years of service, nearly 10 years of which was during the course of the[ parties'] marriage. . . . The negotiated arrangement with the Borough provided that regardless of the change in status for [Appellant's]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54822de2-777e-4746-9c91-d8e8de8d2d04","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4642138-4642138","title":"CourtListener opinion 4642138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"236 WDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"898 A.2d 1141","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt] pay Wife said sum each month for the duration of his lifetime, plus $500.00 per month towards the -3- J-A28017-20 liquidation of the arrearages. It was further recommended by the special master that since the award would not qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), that it be collected and paid to Wife through the Domestic Relations Department [(DRD)] as if it were support, and paid by the issuance of a wage attachment. [In October 2019, Appellant] filed objections and exceptions to the second [report]. . . . [The trial] court heard argument on those objections and exceptions, as well as a supplemental"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4643517 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lay. Extracted reporter citation: 120 N.E.3d 1083. Docket: 20A-DC-845 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4643517 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: $277,826.99. The disparity in respective values is $37,554, half of which, in order to equalize the available retirement funds to each party, is $18,777. Such is the amount required by this Court to be allocated by Husband to Wife of his USPS pension via Qualified Domestic Relations Order within thirty (30) days of this order. Wife's counsel to prepare QDRO. 28. The Court adopts [Wife's] allocation of assets and liabilities contained in Wife's exhibit #11, except required [sic] Husband to assume responsibility for the $10,000 loan from his parents. 29. This division creates a net allocation advantage to Wife in the amount of $5314, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sional order. After a factfinding hearing, the trial court entered a dissolution decree in which it valued and divided marital assets but did not rule on Wife's contempt petition. On appeal, Wife argues that the trial court erred in conflating Husband's retirement account with the parties' pensions and in failing to rule on her contempt petition. We agree with Wife and therefore reverse and remand. Facts and Procedural History [2] Wife and Husband were married in 1984, and Wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2017. In October 2017, the parties entered into an agreed provisional order that gave Wife \"sole pos"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d with the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-845| December 16, 2020 Page 2 of 9 United States Postal Service, and Wife was not employed and was receiving Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI). Wife and Husband each has a vested pension, from which they are not currently receiving payments. No evidence was presented regarding the pensions' present value, but Husband testified that his monthly pension payment would be roughly equal to Wife's pension payment plus her SSI payment. Tr. Vol. 2 at 97-98. Husband also has a defined benefit retirement account with a value of $272,826.99. Ex. V"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"060d7ebe-c401-4b14-826a-86fadb184907","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4643517-4643517","title":"CourtListener opinion 4643517","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20A-DC-845 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"120 N.E.3d 1083","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 99. The disparity in respective values is $37,554, half of which, in order to equalize the available retirement funds to each party, is $18,777. Such is the amount required by this Court to be allocated by Husband to Wife of his USPS pension via Qualified Domestic Relations Order within thirty (30) days of this order. Wife's counsel to prepare QDRO. 28. The Court adopts [Wife's] allocation of assets and liabilities contained in Wife's exhibit #11, except required [sic] Husband to assume responsibility for the $10,000 loan from his parents. 29. This division creates a net allocation advantage to Wife in the amount of $5314, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4644016 Extracted case name: C.D.G. v. N.J.S. Extracted reporter citation: 35 S.W.3d 841. Docket: 2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4644016 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning employee, so any division must consider the tax paid and expenses incurred by the RSU owner in liquidating the RSUs.46 The RSUs in this case have already 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Br"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sted.24 Laura argues that Scott's right to participate 20 Id. at 195. 21 See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. App. 1995) (holding nonvested shares of stock as marital property); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. App. 1986) (holding nonvested military pension to be marital property); In re Marriage of Short, 890 P.2d 12, 13 (Wash. 1995) (Unvested stock options were part community property and part separate property.); but see In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996) (Shares of restricted stock granted during marriage constituted marital property in their entirety.). 22 411 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. App. 2013)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: gment in equitably dividing the marital property.44 KRS 403.190 outlines principal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning employee, so any division must consider the tax paid and expenses incurred by the RSU owner in liquidating the RSUs.46 The RSUs in this"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2e39b316-4176-436a-b316-fc0cfe06b41a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4644016-4644016","title":"CourtListener opinion 4644016","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): h Aetna regarding a merger, clouding Scott's job outlook due to likely restructuring. This merger was never consummated. In addition to the RSUs, the parties contested the classification and equitable distribution of two other pieces of property: Scott's 401k and a plot of unimproved land in Wyoming. The 401k was valued at $499,879. At issue was the portion of the 401k deemed Scott's nonmarital property. The account consisted of funds derived from Scott's employment at Humana during the marriage, Honeywell both prior to and during the marriage, and the Secret Service and British Aerospace prior to the marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4647367 Extracted case name: STOCK v. STOCK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647367 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e opinion of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Michael Joseph Stock (Husband) appeals from the denial of his motion to alter or amend post-decree orders awarding a portion of his federal retirement benefits, including for his pre-marriage federal service, to Susanne Kay Stock (Wife). The community is entitled to reimbursement for community funds used to purchase a credit for Husband's pre-marriage federal service. Wife, in turn, is entitled to receive her portion of that reimbursement plus interest from the time of purchase. The community, however, did not ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ded during marriage are community property,\" Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181, the opposite is equally true: the fruits of labor expended before marriage are separate property. For labor expended during marriage, \"even if the employee spouse is not yet entitled to a pension, [a spouse] ‘and thereby the community, does indeed acquire a property right in . . . pension benefits,' even if the rights have not vested, that is subject to division upon dissolution.\" Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 14 (citation omitted). Again, however, the opposite is true: a pension right acquired for labor expended before marriage is separate property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that these out-of-state cases are inconsistent with how Arizona law values defined-benefit plans, which looks either to present valuation and offset with other community assets, or by division of the benefit when it first reserves jurisdiction and then uses a domestic relations order. See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181-84. Wife's argument, however, conflates the issue of the valuation of community property with the issue of what is community property and what is separate property. Moreover, Wife has not shown how acknowledging Husband's pre-marriage service time as his separate property somehow deviates from Arizona's pension valuation metho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dfa4852-71bf-4db0-8670-0e3f8cbf55c5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647367-4647367","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647367","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: he parties increased Husband's federal retirement benefits by using community funds to purchase credit for time Husband served in the military before the marriage. After Wife petitioned for dissolution, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dividing community property, which the court incorporated into the decree. Consistent with that settlement agreement, the decree awarded Wife her community portion of Husband's federal retirement benefits. ¶3 Wife later moved for entry of retirement benefit division orders, lodging proposed orders awarding her 37.09 percent of Husband's monthly federal retirement benefits. Wife calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c232a87d-2662-4342-bf11-3fe060002a48","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0929 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4647639 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoerr. Docket: 2-19-0929 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647639 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c232a87d-2662-4342-bf11-3fe060002a48","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0929 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c232a87d-2662-4342-bf11-3fe060002a48","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0929 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ose efforts failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c232a87d-2662-4342-bf11-3fe060002a48","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0929 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018)) (the 2019 version) was amended as to its formula for the initial se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c232a87d-2662-4342-bf11-3fe060002a48","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647639-4647639","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647639","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-0929 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4647870 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.E.2d 1300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647870 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: contributions left in the account and market forces, not years of employment or another formula. Therefore, the use of the coverture fraction would be an arbitrary and unnecessary method for determining the marital portion of the account. See Gary Shulman, Qualified Domestic Relations Order Handbook, Section 11.02 (3d Ed., 2014 supplement). Ultimately, the trial court's analysis was supported by a sound reasoning process. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when selecting a method for determining the marital and separate portions of the defined contribution account. See AAAA Ents., 50 Ohio St.3d at 161, 553 N.E.2d 597"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e/cross-appellant Amita Rikhy Boolchand (\"Rikhy\")1 and defendant- appellant/cross-appellee Punit Boolchand (\"Boolchand\"). Boolchand asserts error related to the trial court's division of property, challenging the determination that his defined contribution retirement plan account was entirely marital property and that a joint investment account contained, in part, Rikhy's separate, inherited funds. Rikhy argues, in her cross-appeal, that the court erred when it failed to require Boolchand to contribute to her attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background Facts {¶2} Rikhy and Boolchand were married"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f a retirement plan, if the benefit is vested but unmatured, regardless of the characteristics of the plan. We disagree. {¶16} In Hoyt, decided before the enactment of R.C. 3105.171, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulty courts face when considering pension and retirement benefits in a property division stemming from a divorce. The court set forth \"guidelines\" to be used by the trial courts when resolving such issues, but, more importantly, also recognized that \"no specific rule can apply in every case.\" Id. at 179. Specifically, the court held that \"[w]hen considering a fair and equitable distribution of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63e30047-9ee2-423f-a8e9-88f0f86ec4c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4647870-4647870","title":"CourtListener opinion 4647870","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"645 N.E.2d 1300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s, plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant Amita Rikhy Boolchand (\"Rikhy\")1 and defendant- appellant/cross-appellee Punit Boolchand (\"Boolchand\"). Boolchand asserts error related to the trial court's division of property, challenging the determination that his defined contribution retirement plan account was entirely marital property and that a joint investment account contained, in part, Rikhy's separate, inherited funds. Rikhy argues, in her cross-appeal, that the court erred when it failed to require Boolchand to contribute to her attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background Facts {¶2} Rikhy and Boolcha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4648598 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Extracted reporter citation: 351 S.W.3d 552. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4648598 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Community Hospital Corporation 401(k), the Westrock 401(k), the Community Hospital 403(b) plan, and the Westrock Cash Balance Pension Plan. The QDROs that include a specific valuation date provide that the valuation date \"shall be\" December 17, 2018. Each QDRO assigned Matt a fifty percent interest in Sybrena's balance under the plan. Sybrena filed a request for findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law, followed by a notice of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the trial judge made none. ISSUE ONE In her first issue, Sybrena argues the trial court abused its discretion by altering th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property, (4) $100.00 for two lots on Park Place, (5) $62,720 for the Gardner property, (6) $2450 for the Congress property, and (7) $28,790 for the Kenneth property. The MSA further provided that the funds in the Community Health Corporation and Westrock retirement accounts would be the subject of QDROs. On August 27, 2018, Sybrena filed a motion to divide undivided assets, in which she asserted that Hurricane Harvey damaged most of the property the parties had agreed to divide in the MSA and pleaded that \"the parties received insurance monies for damages to the structure and contents of the home that are not addressed i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rst reimbursed to [Matt] for money expended by him for repairs and reconstruction.\" The trial court awarded Sybrena the entire $7600 insurance payment for the contents of the residence. The trial judge signed QDROs pertaining to the Westrock Consolidated Pension Plan, the Community Hospital Corporation 401(k), the Westrock 401(k), the Community Hospital 403(b) plan, and the Westrock Cash Balance Pension Plan. The QDROs that include a specific valuation date provide that the valuation date \"shall be\" December 17, 2018. Each QDRO assigned Matt a fifty percent interest in Sybrena's balance under the plan. Sybrena"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d92dd57-0d88-4d0c-8d1a-6c8c443925c4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4648598-4648598","title":"CourtListener opinion 4648598","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"351 S.W.3d 552","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): that said value was not listed in the MSA. Sybrena stated she believes Matt intentionally undervalued their real property to reacquire the properties when their divorce is finalized. Matt testified that Sybrena's retirement benefits and the amount in her 401(k) from Community Health Corporation accrued during the marriage. Matt explained that the property values he listed on the MSA came from the county tax rolls, and he 4 testified that significant back taxes were owed on the properties. Matt testified that he sold the properties for approximately $44,000, but the net price after the back taxes were paid w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4649198 Extracted reporter citation: 854 A.2d 597. Docket: 3555 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4649198 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ruary 12, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. After the conduct of the hearing on February 12, 2019, the [trial c]ourt . . . ordered [Husband] to facilitate communication with a representative of the Railroad Retirement Board so that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, \"QDRO\" could be drafted by [Wife]'s counsel and executed by [Husband]. See Order, dated 2/12/19[.] . . . Thereafter, the matter was continued twice. See Orders, dated 5/16/19 and 8/15/19[.] . . . The next hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2019. On November 1, 2019, [Husband], through [counsel], filed his answer to the petition for special relie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: w. Accordingly, we affirm. Wife commenced this action on March 27, 2015. On May 5, 2017, the parties, each represented by counsel, entered into a stipulated order providing, in relevant part: \"Wife will continue to receive payment from Husband's Railroad Retirement Benefit.\" Stipulated Order, 5/5/2017, at 3 ¶ 4.d. On June 20, 2017, the trial court entered a decree and order divorcing the parties from the bonds of matrimony and ordering \"that the terms, ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27034-20 provisions and conditions of a certain Stipulated Order be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ecember 18, 2018, Wife filed a petition for special relief seeking to enforce the stipulated order and for sanctions.1 The petition stated: In July 2018, Wife was made aware that the Stipulated Order did not contain the necessary language for the Railroad Pension Board and that she would no longer continue to receive her share of Husband's pension without a revised Order of Court containing the language required by the Railroad Pension Board. Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief to Enforce Stipulated Order and for Sanctions, 12/18/2018, at ¶ 6. Wife attached a proposed amended order to the petition, that in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b202b508-7069-436f-9a7b-6791df41f6a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649198-4649198","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649198","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3555 EDA 2019","extracted_reporter_citation":"854 A.2d 597","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. After the conduct of the hearing on February 12, 2019, the [trial c]ourt . . . ordered [Husband] to facilitate communication with a representative of the Railroad Retirement Board so that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, \"QDRO\" could be drafted by [Wife]'s counsel and executed by [Husband]. See Order, dated 2/12/19[.] . . . Thereafter, the matter was continued twice. See Orders, dated 5/16/19 and 8/15/19[.] . . . The next hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2019. On November 1, 2019, [Husband], through [counsel], filed his answer to the petition for special relie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4649655 Extracted case name: BECKSTEAD v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 819 F.2d 1113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4649655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Decree\"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new election of a survivor annuity for Mrs. Beckstead. Case: 20-1884 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2021 BECKSTEAD v"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: - vorced. A state court in New Mexico issued a Default De- cree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Divorce Decree\"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new election of a survivor annuit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rs. Beckstead di- vorced. A state court in New Mexico issued a Default De- cree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Divorce Decree\"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4bc075b-328c-4553-9158-c083d6ba6a68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4649655-4649655","title":"CourtListener opinion 4649655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 F.2d 1113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ument: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2021 2 BECKSTEAD v. OPM Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Joyce Beckstead (\"Mrs. Beckstead\") appeals from a de- cision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the \"Board\") denying her a survivor annuity arising from her former husband's federal service. See Beckstead v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2020 MSPB LEXIS 1897 (M.S.P.B. May 11, 2020) (\"Board Decision\"). We affirm. BACKGROUND Mrs. Beckstead was married to Lynn Beckstead (\"Mr. Beckstead\") on February 4, 1965. In 1971, Mr. Beck- stead became a federal employee covered under the Civil Service Retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4652193 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15 DR 0011. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4652193 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he order to effectuate the original intent of the parties.\" (Id.). {¶5} On August 23, 2017, the trial court filed two orders relating to Larry's OPERS and deferred compensation accounts. First, the trial court filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which \"assign[ed] to [Helen] an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of [Larry's] Total Account Balance accumulated under the [Deferred Compensation] Plan as of December 2, 2015 * * *.\" (Doc. No. 56). The QDRO was signed by Helen and Larry and by their attorneys. (Id.). In addition, the trial court filed a DOPO, which directed OPERS -3- Case"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n support of her motion, Helen argued that Larry had again failed to complete the paperwork necessary to effectuate the division of his OPERS account. (Id.). She noted that \"[a] [DOPO] was filed August 23, 2017, granting [her] 50 percent of [Larry's] OPERS Retirement Plan,\" and she maintained that Larry had \"retired but * * * failed to complete the necessary paperwork to authorize the Refund Authorization required by OPERS.\" (Id.). {¶9} On October 9, 2019, Helen, who had obtained new counsel, filed a motion to journalize the agreement that her former attorney read into the record at the August 13, 2018 show-cause heari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: istrate's recommendation that same day. (Id.). Consequently, Helen and Larry were granted a divorce from each other. (Id.). Furthermore, as relevant to this appeal, Helen was to receive \"62.5% of [Larry's] Ohio Public Employee Retirement System [(\"OPERS\")] pension/retirement, with [Larry] cooperating fully to secure a Division of Property Order [(\"DOPO\")] or similarly required court order * * * to effectuate the transfer of these funds from -2- Case No. 13-20-10 [Larry] to [Helen] in accordance with the rules and regulations of [OPERS].\" (Id.). Helen was also to receive \"100% of [Larry's] deferred compensation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3de4a2a3-5c7f-4b13-b9f0-957025b8b752","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652193-4652193","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652193","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"15 DR 0011","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: the judgment entry of divorce. Insofar as the trial court recognized that a DOPO generally cannot be used to modify the property division in a divorce decree, the trial court was correct. \"A DOPO ‘is an order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.'\" Estate of Parkins v. Parkins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-50, 2019-Ohio-1941, ¶ 37, quoting State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, ¶ 18. \"A DOPO ‘merely implemen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4652971 Extracted case name: STOCK v. STOCK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4652971 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e opinion of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Michael Joseph Stock (Husband) appeals from the denial of his motion to alter or amend post-decree orders awarding a portion of his federal retirement benefits, including for his pre-marriage federal service, to Susanne Kay Stock (Wife). The community is entitled to reimbursement for community funds used to purchase a credit for Husband's pre-marriage federal service. Wife, in turn, is entitled to receive her portion of that reimbursement plus interest from the time of purchase. The community, however, did not ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ded during marriage are community property,\" Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181, the opposite is equally true: the fruits of labor expended before marriage are separate property. For labor expended during marriage, \"even if the employee spouse is not yet entitled to a pension, [a spouse] ‘and thereby the community, does indeed acquire a property right in . . . pension benefits,' even if the rights have not vested, that is subject to division upon dissolution.\" Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 14 (citation omitted). Again, however, the opposite is true: a pension right acquired for labor expended before marriage is separate property"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that these out-of-state cases are inconsistent with how Arizona law values defined-benefit plans, which looks either to present valuation and offset with other community assets, or by division of the benefit when it first reserves jurisdiction and then uses a domestic relations order. See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181-84. Wife's argument, however, conflates the issue of the valuation of community property with the issue of what is community property and what is separate property. Moreover, Wife has not shown how acknowledging Husband's pre-marriage service time as his separate property somehow deviates from Arizona's pension valuation metho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562592dc-b301-41fb-9033-b1fe1af74023","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4652971-4652971","title":"CourtListener opinion 4652971","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: he parties increased Husband's federal retirement benefits by using community funds to purchase credit for time Husband served in the military before the marriage. After Wife petitioned for dissolution, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dividing community property, which the court incorporated into the decree. Consistent with that settlement agreement, the decree awarded Wife her community portion of Husband's federal retirement benefits. ¶3 Wife later moved for entry of retirement benefit division orders, lodging proposed orders awarding her 37.09 percent of Husband's monthly federal retirement benefits. Wife calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61e8701b-c5c7-4142-b8f5-bbcb54e3f4d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653189","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0090","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4653189 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SURAJ GEORGE PAZHOOR AND HANCY CHENNIKKARA PAZHOOR Upon the Petition of SURAJ. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20-0090. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653189 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61e8701b-c5c7-4142-b8f5-bbcb54e3f4d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653189","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0090","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61e8701b-c5c7-4142-b8f5-bbcb54e3f4d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653189","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0090","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e to become self-sufficient at ‘a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.'\" Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 411 (quoting Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(f)). As to need, we focus on earning 7The parties also stipulated to distribution of a 401(k) account by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 17 capability of the party seeking maintenance, not necessarily actual income. Id.; see Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(e). While Hancy has an impressive educational background, determining her earning capacity is somewhat of a nebulous task given her length of absence from the job market and resulting lac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61e8701b-c5c7-4142-b8f5-bbcb54e3f4d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653189-4653189","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653189","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0090","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ndard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.'\" Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 411 (quoting Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(f)). As to need, we focus on earning 7The parties also stipulated to distribution of a 401(k) account by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 17 capability of the party seeking maintenance, not necessarily actual income. Id.; see Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(e). While Hancy has an impressive educational background, determining her earning capacity is somewhat of a nebulous task given her length of absence from the job market and resulting lack of training, employment skills, and work experience."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4653190 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW TAIT MILLER AND KARRI ANN MILLER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW TAIT MILLER. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 19-0969. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653190 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s for retirement pay. He has a total of 3,522 retirement points. Fifty percent of 929/3522 is 13.1%, which is Karri[ ]'s share of Matthew's military pension. In a post-trial ruling, the court ordered Matthew to pay the sum personally rather than through a qualified domestic relations order. On our de novo review, we agree with the district court's decision to award Karri a portion of the expected National Guard retirement pension of $1395 per month. See Howell, 434 N.W.2d at 632 (stating military pensions, like private pensions, are considered marital property and can be subject to division in 9 dissolution proceedings). Although the m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: le to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015, Matthew began receiving gross monthly disability pension payments of $2651 from the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa.1 Shortly before filing the dissolution petition, Matthew took a job"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: w was forty-two years old at the time of trial. He joined the Army in 1993 and served in the Army National Guard, participating in four overseas tours of duty. Based on his service, he is eligible to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"354a2412-fa33-42a6-8d51-e07bb6792588","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653190-4653190","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653190","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-0969","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s eligible to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015, Matthew began receiving gross monthly disability pension payments of $2651 from the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa.1 Shortly before filing the dissolution petition,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4653646 Extracted case name: SAMUEL LEE BACHELOR JR. v. AJA MICHELE BACHELOR N. Extracted reporter citation: 535 S.W.3d 467. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653646 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt Account as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the Final Decree by entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband represents that he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ch was incorporated by reference into the final decree of divorce that was entered on January 15, 2019. This MDA set forth various obligations and responsibilities with which the parties were to comply. Specifically, the MDA provided for the following: 8. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. Wife shall be awarded as a division of marital property one-half of the value of Husband's Tennessee Consolidated Retirement Account as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum unless he is no longer employed by Shelby County Schools System. In the event he receives a lump sum, Wife is entitled to her one-half on the day he receives such sum. Wife shall be awarded any and all pension and/or retirement accounts she has accrued during the marriage. .... 10. HE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"99d5b406-2be9-48ea-ad7e-5e3f68d98480","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4653646-4653646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4653646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"535 S.W.3d 467","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the Final Decree by entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband represents that he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4656355 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JODY L. and ROBERT J. PALLO. JODY L. PALLO. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4656355 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: provide: \"HUSBAND shall receive as his separate property all of the items set forth below: [¶] . . . [¶] 3. Any and all community property interest in HUSBAND's Retirement/Pension/401(k) with Allergan, which shall be subject to the equalization payment and a QDRO, as described below.\" \"The community and/or co-owned interest in HUSBAND's Allergan Retirement/Pension/401(k) accounts shall be awarded to HUSBAND subject to the transfer of the amount of $65,000 to WIFE as her portion of the community property interest in HUSBAND's retirement account, after accounting for all equalization. If a Qualified Domestic Relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ribed below.\" \"The community and/or co-owned interest in HUSBAND's Allergan Retirement/Pension/401(k) accounts shall be awarded to HUSBAND subject to the transfer of the amount of $65,000 to WIFE as her portion of the community property interest in HUSBAND's retirement account, after accounting for all equalization. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is necessary to accomplish this division, Richard Muir shall be appointed pursuant to Evidence Code § 730 to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders dividing any accounts including 401(k), pension and deferred compensation benefits of HUSBAND as may be required. HUSBAND"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: heir property; the MSA was approved as a 1 stipulated judgment by the trial court. More than six years later, Jody filed a motion to set aside the stipulated judgment on the ground Robert had failed to disclose the existence of a community property asset—his pension. The trial court found that the motion to set aside was untimely, and that Jody had been aware of the existence of the pension at the time the parties entered into the MSA. Jody appeals from the postjudgment order denying her motion. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We reject Jody's claim that the Employee Retirement Income Securit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2741072a-3328-4eba-8e21-63b45f9ce43c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4656355-4656355","title":"CourtListener opinion 4656355","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: tence of the pension at the time the parties entered into the MSA. Jody appeals from the postjudgment order denying her motion. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We reject Jody's claim that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts her waiver of a right to the pension. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment. Jody's motion to set aside was made under Family Code section 2122 \"on the grounds of Failure to Comply with Disclos[ure] Requirements of Chapter 9, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, and/or as an Omitted Property Adjudication pursuant to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4657764 Extracted case name: HIGGINS v. CURRIER. Extracted reporter citation: 937 N.W.2d 838. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4657764 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ative dates for the marriage were from May 2016 to July 2017 and that Higgins thus made $21,000 in contributions to the 401K account that were subject to division. Accordingly, it awarded Currier $10,500 from Higgins' 401K and ordered it transferred through a qualified domestic relations order. The - 753 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports HIGGINS v. CURRIER Cite as 307 Neb. 748 district court awarded the parties any other retirement plans held in their own names. In a subsection of the decree addressing real property, the district court concluded that the Council Bluffs house was not a marital asset. It also concl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Higgins was represented by counsel at trial. Currier represented herself. Both parties testifed and offered exhibits, which were received into evidence by the district court. Summary of Trial Evidence. Much of the evidence at trial concerned investment and retirement accounts owned by Higgins. Higgins testified that he had a TD Ameritrade account with an account number end- ing in \"3733\" (the 3733 account). He testified that the 3733 account was in existence prior to the marriage and that he did not make any deposits into the 3733 account during the mar- riage. Higgins' counsel referred to the account as a \"brokerage account\" d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ., Miller‑Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ. Papik, J. In its decree dissolving the marriage of Billy Meredith Higgins and Rashell Rene Currier, the district court for Douglas County found that Currier should be awarded $10,500 from a 401K account owned by Higgins, but otherwise awarded Higgins all funds in his retirement and investment accounts. Currier appealed, challenging various aspects of the dis- trict court's dissolution decree, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. See Higgins v. Currier, No. A‑19‑343, 2020 WL 634183 (Neb. App. Feb. 11, 2020) (selected for posting to court webs"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87379f02-c473-468b-a6b5-cea9f48dbdd9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4657764-4657764","title":"CourtListener opinion 4657764","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.W.2d 838","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s for the marriage were from May 2016 to July 2017 and that Higgins thus made $21,000 in contributions to the 401K account that were subject to division. Accordingly, it awarded Currier $10,500 from Higgins' 401K and ordered it transferred through a qualified domestic relations order. The - 753 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports HIGGINS v. CURRIER Cite as 307 Neb. 748 district court awarded the parties any other retirement plans held in their own names. In a subsection of the decree addressing real property, the district court concluded that the Council Bluffs house was not a marital asset. It also concl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4658208 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4658208 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 01k Plan with Profit Sharing,\" with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the \"Temporary Orders\") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein \"QDRO\") attached hereto as Exhibit \"A,\" Petitioner [Appellant] is ordered to tender to O'Neil Wysocki, P.C., $105,111.57 from these funds. The total amount to be received is $244,000.00, with $100,000.00 of this amount having been awarded in the Temporary Orders, and $144,000.00 of this amount being awarded in this decree. IT IS ORDERED that this $105,111."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nses, and costs incurred as a result of legal representation in this case, subject to the following: IT IS ORDERED that within seven (7) days of Petitioner, Joy Maraio-Wilhoit's receipt of funds or proceeds (herein \"received funds\") from the Edward Jones 401(k), account ending xx733 (also known as the \"Industrial Automation Services 401k Plan with Profit Sharing,\" with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the \"Temporary Orders\") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein \"QDRO\") attached hereto a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: \"Industrial Automation Services 401k Plan with Profit Sharing,\" with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the \"Temporary Orders\") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein \"QDRO\") attached hereto as Exhibit \"A,\" Petitioner [Appellant] is ordered to tender to O'Neil Wysocki, P.C., $105,111.57 from these funds. The total amount to be received is $244,000.00, with $100,000.00 of this amount having been awarded in the Temporary Orders, and $144,000.00 of this amount being awarded in this decree. IT IS ORDERED that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2a906307-c98b-4edc-92f3-179629a78b62","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4658208-4658208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4658208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hsmith v. Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. 2019); Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2012). Unlike other family law settlement agreements, before approving an MSA, the trial court is not required to determine if the parties' negotiated and agreed property division is \"just and right.\" Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d at 775; Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618; see also In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 455 (Tex. 2013). Moreover, once signed, an MSA cannot be revoked. Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618. Accordingly, an MSA that complies with the statutory requirements is binding on the parties, and the trial court must enforce its terms. Toler v. Sander"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa845f1b-88b9-4c57-91ef-c82b3651c85f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4660635","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4660635 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4660635 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa845f1b-88b9-4c57-91ef-c82b3651c85f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4660635","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"aa845f1b-88b9-4c57-91ef-c82b3651c85f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4660635-4660635","title":"CourtListener opinion 4660635","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 69), along with two misdemeanors, providing false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) and disobeying a domestic relations order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)). Defendant was held to answer on all charges except for the disobeying a domestic relations order. The jury found defendant guilty of aggravated resisting an executive officer and providing false information. The jury could not reach a verdict on the battery against a peace officer charge, so the trial court declared a mistrial as to that charge. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for the felony resisting an officer c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4661313 Extracted reporter citation: 935 F.2d 1114. Docket: entry 143. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4661313 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: _________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal involves whether a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Divorce Decree\" or \"Decree\") is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. If the Decree is a QDRO, then the plaintiff, Stela Festini-Steele, is entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance policy that her ex-husband, Billy Steele, held through defendant ExxonMobil Corporation. ExxonMobil concluded that the * A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: bil points out that the Separation Agreement warned the parties about the need to obtain a QDRO, thus suggesting the Separation Agreement 17 did not itself function as a QDRO. But the warning appears in a separate section of the Agreement concerning only retirement plans, and there the parties checked boxes indicating they had no such plans or had already divided or transferred any such funds. See Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 47. In any event, we do not think that the presence of this warning requires plan administrators or courts to determine that a DRO into which such a separation agreement is incorporated is not a QDRO."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to deny Ms. Festini-Steele's claim, not the district court's ruling. See Holcomb v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 578 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir. 2009). We therefore afford no deference to the district court's decision. Martinez v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Plan, 795 F.3d 1211, 4 In a separate minute order filed the same day as its order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court explained that it had not adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case because Ms. Festini-Steele had not sought a ruling on her state-law claim. See Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 15 (docket e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f4c4b0b-32a1-4770-9a70-d352b1340502","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661313-4661313","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry 143","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 F.2d 1114","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal involves whether a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Divorce Decree\" or \"Decree\") is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. If the Decree is a QDRO, then the plaintiff, Stela Festini-Steele, is entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance policy that her ex-husband, Billy Steele, held through defendant ExxonMobil Corporation. ExxonMobil concluded that the * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has deter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50b56353-d0c0-49f2-b160-c583541f3009","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"896 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 A.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4661610 Extracted reporter citation: 866 A.2d 394. Docket: 896 MDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4661610 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50b56353-d0c0-49f2-b160-c583541f3009","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"896 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 A.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50b56353-d0c0-49f2-b160-c583541f3009","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"896 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 A.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ined by Wife. 6. Wife is to retain her Chevrolet Corvette ($12,415.00) and Ford Explorer ($12,600.00) and Husband is to retain the farm truck ($1,250.00). 7. Wife is to transfer 52% ($102,645.00) of her retirement assets ($172,533.00) to Husband via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the parties sharing the cost of preparation and approval of that order. 8. Wife is to pay Husband $20,000.00 for his interest in Entwistle family properties in Maine. 9. Wife is to reimburse Husband $1,500.00 for two televisions. In addition, the Master recommended that Wife pay alimony to Husband for a period of 12 months from the entry of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50b56353-d0c0-49f2-b160-c583541f3009","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"896 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 A.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fe. 6. Wife is to retain her Chevrolet Corvette ($12,415.00) and Ford Explorer ($12,600.00) and Husband is to retain the farm truck ($1,250.00). 7. Wife is to transfer 52% ($102,645.00) of her retirement assets ($172,533.00) to Husband via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the parties sharing the cost of preparation and approval of that order. 8. Wife is to pay Husband $20,000.00 for his interest in Entwistle family properties in Maine. 9. Wife is to reimburse Husband $1,500.00 for two televisions. In addition, the Master recommended that Wife pay alimony to Husband for a period of 12 months from the entry of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50b56353-d0c0-49f2-b160-c583541f3009","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4661610-4661610","title":"CourtListener opinion 4661610","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"896 MDA 2020","extracted_reporter_citation":"866 A.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: of Common Pleas of Adams County Civil Division at No(s): 2017-SU-0000043 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2021 Appellant, Kelly S. Retowsky (Husband), appeals from the order entered in this equitable distribution dispute with Appellee, Julie C. Retowsky (Wife). We affirm. The trial court recounted the factual and procedural background as follows: [Wife] and [Husband] were married on July 15, 2002. Husband filed a divorce complaint against Wife in York County, Pennsylvania on or about October 17, 2016. Subsequently, on January 17, 2017, Wife filed a Complain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b0cf942-611e-4dd7-b917-ccb292021cb1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4663099","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4663099 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 17CA0255 Garfield County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4663099 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b0cf942-611e-4dd7-b917-ccb292021cb1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4663099","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2b0cf942-611e-4dd7-b917-ccb292021cb1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4663099-4663099","title":"CourtListener opinion 4663099","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"17CA0255 Garfield County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y placed the children with their maternal grandmother. However, father M.M. moved from Florida to Colorado and sought custody of all three children soon after the case began. He said that he shared custody of the two older children with mother under a domestic relations order, and he asserted that he should have custody of M.A.M. because he was her psychological parent. The court placed the children with him, under the protective supervision of the Department, at the end of March. 3 ¶8 In May, father M.M. entered into a stipulated agreement for continued adjudication under section 19-3-505(5), C.R.S. 2020, and the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63cecf0e-2ada-49e7-99ee-d50d4c709eb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664265","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4664265 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4664265 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63cecf0e-2ada-49e7-99ee-d50d4c709eb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664265","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"63cecf0e-2ada-49e7-99ee-d50d4c709eb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664265-4664265","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664265","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and that she and defendant had probably discussed the restraining order. The jury found defendant guilty of felony vandalism (count 3), exhibiting a deadly weapon (counts 4 & 6), injuring a spouse or cohabitant (count 5), battery (count 7), and disobeying a domestic relations order (count 8). The jury could not reach a verdict on counts 1 and 2, and the court declared a mistrial as to those counts. The trial court subsequently found true the on-bail enhancement attached to count five. On February 14, 2019, the trial court terminated the previously issued protective order. 2 The trial court took judicial notice of the restraining orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4664986 Extracted case name: SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4664986 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 6. The Court ordered an equal division of the parties' community property and debt. The court further determined that while the retirement account was Husband's, Wife was entitled to her share of the community contributions and assigned an expert to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to determine the community interest in the account to be \"equitably divided\" between Husband and Wife. Husband timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (\"A.R.S.\") section 12–2101(C) (2003). ¶11 After Husband appealed, Wife moved the trial court to correct and cla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: herwise provided in this Agreement, the following property now owned by either party shall remain and be their separate property. . .[t]he property currently owned by each party is described on Exhibits A and B to this Agreement.\" Exhibit A included Husband's retirement account, which had an approximate value of $860,000 at the time. ¶4 The agreement stated that on dissolution of marriage, the following provisions shall apply: a. Each party shall have an equal interest in all property acquired by either party during the course of marriage (except 2 SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER Decision of the Court property that is merely the re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: p. 2010). ¶14 Absent parties' express intent, employer and employee contributions to a retirement account during marriage create a community interest in those contributions. A.R.S § 25-211; see also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181 (1986) (holding that pension plans, as a form of deferred compensation to employees for services rendered, are considered 5 SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER Decision of the Court community property when earned through employment during marriage.). Under the agreement's Clause a, \"[e]ach party shall have an equal interest in all property acquired by either party during the course of marriage ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bd0afc2-50e1-4c03-9bf8-4a4e290ec971","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4664986-4664986","title":"CourtListener opinion 4664986","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1 Greg Littman Sembower (\"Husband\") appeals from the trial court's decree dissolving his marriage to Larissa Lee Sembower (\"Wife\"). Husband claims that the court erred in interpreting the parties' premarital agreement to find a community interest in Husband's 401(k) account that had to be shared with Wife. We affirm the trial court's ruling that Wife was entitled to an equal share of the community property contributions made to the account and any appreciation or increase attributable to those contributions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife lived together and filed an affidavit of common-law marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4665913 Extracted reporter citation: 892 N.W.2d 100. Docket: A-20-380. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4665913 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 5, one half of F7, FA [sic], F 16 and one half of F 17. The Defendant is awarded F1O and . . . one half of F 17. Each party is otherwise ordered the property in his or her respective possessions or as set forth in in [sic] Exhibit 25. [Nellie] is awarded a QDRO from [Daniel's] retirement at F 11 in the amount of $77,105. [Nellie] failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the gift of land P9. The evidence does establish that the purchase price was less than market value. It was nominally a sale and made to both parties. [Nellie] failed to meet her burden of proof regarding her premarital cattle L5. The proce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ishings & Equipment $12,230.00 $12,190.00 B. Checking & Savings Accounts $82,533.00 $82,533.00 C. Automobiles & Other Vehicles $12,764.00 $15,814.00 D. Farm/Business Equipment, Inventory, & Supplies $- $- E. Real Estate $354,000.00 $- F. Life Insurance & Retirement Plans $208,462.80 $200,907.84 G. Miscellaneous $7,375.00 $- TOTAL ASSETS $677,349.80 $311,444.84 -7- LIABILITIES H. Mortgages or Contracts on Real Estate ($232,452.27) $- I. Secured Creditors $- $- J. Unsecured Debts ($916.14) ($1,866.79) TOTAL DEBTS ($233,368.41) ($1,866.79) LESS: ASSETS OWNED PRIOR TO MARRIAGE K-L ($265.00) ($110.00) O-P Gifts ($2,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): urgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356, 934 N.W.2d 488 (2019) in making our determination that the cattle proceeds should not be included in the marital estate. In Burgardt, the Nebraska Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether a portion of the husband's 401K and proceeds from an inheritance constituted nonmarital property. More specifically, the husband argued that the Court of Appeals erred in determining his failure to offer documentary proof to support his unrefuted testimony resulted in a failure to satisfy his evidentiary burden. Id. Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c589ffb-e49d-4183-a23a-bc61c36396aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4665913-4665913","title":"CourtListener opinion 4665913","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"A-20-380","extracted_reporter_citation":"892 N.W.2d 100","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: award and failing to allocate tax exemptions equally between the parties. -3- IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of that discretion. Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123, 892 N.W.2d 100 (2017). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0d3482-8000-4934-9888-b9468d4e8c06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4669076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.E.2d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4669076 Extracted case name: LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEWIS. Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.E.2d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4669076 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0d3482-8000-4934-9888-b9468d4e8c06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4669076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.E.2d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0d3482-8000-4934-9888-b9468d4e8c06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4669076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.E.2d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: recommended sanction. Misconduct {¶ 5} In June 2017, Sandra Deem retained Lewis to represent her in a marriage-dissolution proceeding, and on December 5, 2017, the court entered a judgment entry of dissolution. The entry required Lewis to prepare and submit qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\") by February 28, 2018, in order to divide the parties' retirement assets. Lewis, however, failed to prepare the QDROs and had no further communication with Deem after the court's December 5 judgment entry. By April 2018, none of the retirement funds had been distributed. Deem filed a grievance against Lewis in which she alleged that he had not onl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f0d3482-8000-4934-9888-b9468d4e8c06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4669076-4669076","title":"CourtListener opinion 4669076","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.E.2d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d sanction. Misconduct {¶ 5} In June 2017, Sandra Deem retained Lewis to represent her in a marriage-dissolution proceeding, and on December 5, 2017, the court entered a judgment entry of dissolution. The entry required Lewis to prepare and submit qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\") by February 28, 2018, in order to divide the parties' retirement assets. Lewis, however, failed to prepare the QDROs and had no further communication with Deem after the court's December 5 judgment entry. By April 2018, none of the retirement funds had been distributed. Deem filed a grievance against Lewis in which she alleged that he had not onl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4671816 Extracted case name: MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BARREN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE MIKE MCKOWN. Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.3d 191. Docket: 2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4671816 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at $24,650.35. Johnny's account had a fair market value of $352,362.13 as of December 31, 2018. However, there was evidence that this account was subject to attachment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), except for any portion assigned to Carla under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). To protect Carla's interest, the family court awarded her $49,600.00 -4- from this account, representing the amount of Johnny's maintenance arrearage. The court further ordered that the remaining balance shall be split equally between Carla and Johnny. The family court next turned to the division of marital debts. Most relevant to this appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nny filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The contested issues included: valuation and division of Johnny's interest in the law firm in which he was a partner; division of other marital property, including the marital residence and the parties' retirement accounts; division of marital debt; Carla's claim for maintenance; and attorney fees. The family court awarded Carla temporary maintenance during the pendency of this action. -2- During discovery, Carla sought records concerning the value of Johnny's interest in the law firm Gillenwater, Hampton, and Bell. She argued that Johnny's interest in the firm's cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t impression, that an attorney's contingent-fee contracts should be considered marital property to be divided as part of the equitable division of the marital estate. The Court found that a contingent-fee contract is comparable to an unvested interest in a pension or retirement plan. 1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -6- So while the right to the actual funds from the pension had not vested yet, what did vest was the plan-holding spouse's right to participate in the pension and bring a cause of action if denied that participation. This is exactly the interest that an attorney spouse has in a contingent-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"52a5e4c4-129f-4921-bc8c-5bfb607ab627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4671816-4671816","title":"CourtListener opinion 4671816","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"536 S.W.3d 191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 0.35. Johnny's account had a fair market value of $352,362.13 as of December 31, 2018. However, there was evidence that this account was subject to attachment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), except for any portion assigned to Carla under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). To protect Carla's interest, the family court awarded her $49,600.00 -4- from this account, representing the amount of Johnny's maintenance arrearage. The court further ordered that the remaining balance shall be split equally between Carla and Johnny. The family court next turned to the division of marital debts. Most relevant to this appe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4672360 Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4672360 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court found that \"those were all incurred as part of this failed painting business. That's marital debt.\" The trial court awarded Husband half of the portions of Wife's TCRS pension and Edward Jones IRA that accrued during the marriage \"to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" Wife moved the court for a new trial or to alter or amend its order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. 2 Wife cites testimony that she worked overtime to earn the money for the $50,000 kitchen remodel and cites Husband's admission that he did not contribute to the kitchen remodel at all. 3 There is no dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: g a two-story addition, a large storage garage, a kitchen remodel,2 and a sunroom. The trial, conducted on November 18, 2019, focused on determining Husband's equitable interest in: (1) the marital home; (2) Wife's Tennessee Consolidated Retirement Services pension (\"TCRS\") which increased in value during the marriage; and (3) Wife's IRA which increased in value during the marriage. Wife testified that the value of the marital home at the time of the marriage was approximately $150,000, despite Husband's claim that a 1996 tax appraisal showed a value of $42,500. The parties later agreed that the value submitted by Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d that \"those were all incurred as part of this failed painting business. That's marital debt.\" The trial court awarded Husband half of the portions of Wife's TCRS pension and Edward Jones IRA that accrued during the marriage \"to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" Wife moved the court for a new trial or to alter or amend its order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. 2 Wife cites testimony that she worked overtime to earn the money for the $50,000 kitchen remodel and cites Husband's admission that he did not contribute to the kitchen remodel at all. 3 There is no dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58b29600-bdd5-48cb-8fb2-c038217b1303","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672360-4672360","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672360","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"414 S.W.3d 685","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). Our review of a trial court's conclusions of law is de novo upon the record with no presumption of correctness. Tyron v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution of marital property, and an appellate court will defer to a trial court's distribution unless it is inconsistent with the statutory factors or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Baggett v. Baggett, 422 S.W.3d 537, 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). IV. DISCUSSION A. &. B. Wife first takes issue with the trial court's valuation of the marital"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61bbcb41-feab-4308-a47e-b5cf56642948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4672678 Extracted reporter citation: 615 N.E.2d 689. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4672678 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61bbcb41-feab-4308-a47e-b5cf56642948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61bbcb41-feab-4308-a47e-b5cf56642948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court. Kubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change in circumstances has occurred because he is no longer incarcerated. {¶9} The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 31, 2020. The trial court s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61bbcb41-feab-4308-a47e-b5cf56642948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: al court's November 2011 judgment entry, this Court overruled appellant's objections and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Kubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"61bbcb41-feab-4308-a47e-b5cf56642948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4672678-4672678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4672678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"615 N.E.2d 689","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change in circumstances has occurred because he is no longer incarcerated. {¶9} The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 31, 2020. The trial court s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62fd9904-e803-4360-acd9-c33961e6c8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224","title":"CourtListener opinion 4673224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"3 N.E.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4673224 Extracted reporter citation: 3 N.E.3d 179. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4673224 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62fd9904-e803-4360-acd9-c33961e6c8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224","title":"CourtListener opinion 4673224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"3 N.E.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62fd9904-e803-4360-acd9-c33961e6c8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224","title":"CourtListener opinion 4673224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"3 N.E.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: esidential property by limited warranty deed. {¶5} We also cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Schneider in contempt for failing to effectuate the transfer of Ameriprise funds pursuant to the divorce decree and the subsequent qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), 2 and that he failed to pay the mortgages on the residential property. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Schneider is obligated to transfer Ms. Daugherty's agreed-upon personal property in Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree, and that if he cannot locate the property, he must pay the item's assigned"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62fd9904-e803-4360-acd9-c33961e6c8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224","title":"CourtListener opinion 4673224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"3 N.E.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: edule; and (2) timely refinance the marital real estate; and by finding him in contempt of court for his failure to (3) pay the financial obligations of the parties' marital home; and (4) effectuate the transfer of Ms. Daugherty's portion of the Ameriprise retirement account. He further contends the trial court erred by (5) requiring him to deliver the personal property items listed on Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree; and (6) assigning values to the personal property and ordering him to either deliver the property or pay the amount equal to the value. {¶3} After a review of the record and pertinent law, we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"62fd9904-e803-4360-acd9-c33961e6c8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4673224-4673224","title":"CourtListener opinion 4673224","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"3 N.E.3d 179","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: property by limited warranty deed. {¶5} We also cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Schneider in contempt for failing to effectuate the transfer of Ameriprise funds pursuant to the divorce decree and the subsequent qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), 2 and that he failed to pay the mortgages on the residential property. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Schneider is obligated to transfer Ms. Daugherty's agreed-upon personal property in Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree, and that if he cannot locate the property, he must pay the item's assigned"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4674208 Extracted reporter citation: 937 N.E.2d 1077. Docket: 28961 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4674208 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Horvath Sullivan, 46.52 percent of his disposable military retirement pay. The divorce decree also required Brendan to directly pay Lisa this amount until \"a separate document captioned MILITARY RETIRED PAY DIVISION ORDER,\" which was to be prepared by the \"QDRO Group,\" became effective.2 {¶ 3} On October 12, 2018, Lisa filed a motion requesting that Brendan be found in contempt of court for his failure to directly pay Lisa her portion of the retirement benefit. A hearing before a magistrate was conducted on February 22, 2019. The magistrate concluded Brendan had not paid Lisa the entire amount of retirement p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: TARY RETIRED PAY DIVISION ORDER,\" which was to be prepared by the \"QDRO Group,\" became effective.2 {¶ 3} On October 12, 2018, Lisa filed a motion requesting that Brendan be found in contempt of court for his failure to directly pay Lisa her portion of the retirement benefit. A hearing before a magistrate was conducted on February 22, 2019. The magistrate concluded Brendan had not paid Lisa the entire amount of retirement pay to which she was entitled and that Brendan was therefore in contempt of court. According to the magistrate's decision, the deficit was $4,394.18. The magistrate ordered that Brendan could purge the co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: retired pay. But the trial court's calculations fail to support that assertion. He also suggests that Lisa has not paid the \"survivor benefit premium\" as required. Under the terms of the divorce decree, however, Lisa's percentage of Brendan's military pension was reduced from 50 percent to 46.52 percent -5- to account for her obligation to pay that premium. Thus, Lisa is paying the premium through this reduction. Brendan further argues that this deduction of 3.48 percent does not cover the full cost of the premium. But Brendan consented to this percentage when he signed the agreed divorce decree conta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42342995-6f7b-4c4c-9b92-de261537dc69","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674208-4674208","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674208","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"28961 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 N.E.2d 1077","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: setting forth any assignments of error, articulated the following issues for review: 1. The Appellant requests the Honorable court's review of 10 U.S. Code 1408. The Appellant is subject to the effects of two Trial Court Orders \"Agreed Order Regarding Survivor Benefit Designation and Premium\" dated 21 Sept 2017 and the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce\" dated 21 June 2018. In an attempt to bypass 10 U.S. Code 1408 Section (e) protections of 50% of his disposable retired income. 2. The Appellant requests the Honorable court's review of \"The Military Pay Division Order\" prior to signature. The order is not in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562ca6c4-1e6b-486b-aeac-017604cd0294","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674780","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP1082-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"778 N.W.2d 154","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4674780 Extracted reporter citation: 778 N.W.2d 154. Docket: 2020AP1082-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4674780 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562ca6c4-1e6b-486b-aeac-017604cd0294","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674780","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP1082-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"778 N.W.2d 154","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"562ca6c4-1e6b-486b-aeac-017604cd0294","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4674780-4674780","title":"CourtListener opinion 4674780","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020AP1082-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME","extracted_reporter_citation":"778 N.W.2d 154","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2-20 (electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/ raw/002515.html). ¶6 In 2013, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for five months for misconduct consisting of failing to timely file a judgment of divorce and promptly prepare a QDRO; failing to respond to a client's emails and telephone calls; failing to notify a client of his license suspension; failing to consult 3 No. 2020AP1082-D with a client regarding the method and means of pursing the client's claim; failing to advise a client of the dismissal of a case; and failing to respond in a timely fashion to the OLR's written req"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4679107 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tang. Extracted reporter citation: 836 P.2d 832. Docket: 54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679107 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rty's mistake at the time of acceptance and unfairly exploited the mistaken party's error.\" Lietz, 166 Wn. App. at 579 n.10. 13 No. 54219-6-II McClain fails to demonstrate that contract principles apply to the pay order.13 A pay order is more similar to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), in that it is intended to enforce or facilitate the acquisition of a right or interest awarded under the divorce decree, not to establish the parties' rights in the first instance. See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App. 2006) (\"A QDRO is a species of post-divorce enforcement or clarification order.\") And because the pay order is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ,\" but not the exact 4 LaVergne and McClain agree that former Alabama Code section 30-2-51(b) (1995) applied. This statute provided: The judge, at his or her discretion, may include in the estate of either spouse the present value of any future or current retirement benefits that a spouse may have a vested interest in or may be receiving on the date the action for divorce is filed, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) The parties have been married for a period of 10 years during which the retirement was being accumulated. (2) The court shall not include in the estate the value of any retirement benefits ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ake at the time of acceptance and unfairly exploited the mistaken party's error.\" Lietz, 166 Wn. App. at 579 n.10. 13 No. 54219-6-II McClain fails to demonstrate that contract principles apply to the pay order.13 A pay order is more similar to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), in that it is intended to enforce or facilitate the acquisition of a right or interest awarded under the divorce decree, not to establish the parties' rights in the first instance. See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App. 2006) (\"A QDRO is a species of post-divorce enforcement or clarification order.\") And because the pay order is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae60032b-3673-4518-9ae9-b0230182c30e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679107-4679107","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679107","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"836 P.2d 832","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ] of his disposable military retirement pay, as they were married more than 10 years and required by the parties' divorce decree.\" Id. at 183. This pay order thus awarded McClain 50 percent of LaVergne's total military retirement pay, not 50 percent of the marital portion of LaVergne's military retirement pay. In October 2017, the DFAS notified LaVergne that McClain had applied to receive \"50 [percent] of [his] retired/retainer pay.\" Id. at 154. The DFAS advised LaVergne that if he did not 1 If a formula had been used in this instance, it would have been: 0.5 x 14/[total years of service]. Given LaVergne served 28 year"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2edd170-66c5-41cd-9493-b505b2110e0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4679831 Extracted case name: GPC-MSB v. CARLA YOUNG. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679831 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2edd170-66c5-41cd-9493-b505b2110e0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2edd170-66c5-41cd-9493-b505b2110e0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: he was a party, then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion.\" Id. at 293 (cleaned up). Lundstrom's remaining claims allege that Ligand and Young breached various fiduciary duties under ERISA and state law. Lundstrom seeks damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. These claims do not expressly seek \"relief from the [Texas] state court judgment\" or assert that Lundstrom was injured by an \"error or errors by the [Texas] state court.\" See Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1140. These claims 4 are independent, even though they \"den[y] a legal con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2edd170-66c5-41cd-9493-b505b2110e0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). Second, the federal complaint must seek \"relief from the state court judgment\" as the remedy. Id. 1. In Claims 4 and 5, Lundstrom challenges Texas state court judgments directly, petitioning the district court to declare that a 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and a Stock Domestic Relations Order issued by a Texas state court are invalid. Counsel for Lundstrom conceded this during oral argument. Because Claims 4 and 5 meet the two-part test from Kougasian, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims under Rooker-Feldman and properly dismissed them. See i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c2edd170-66c5-41cd-9493-b505b2110e0c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679831-4679831","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: int must seek \"relief from the state court judgment\" as the remedy. Id. 1. In Claims 4 and 5, Lundstrom challenges Texas state court judgments directly, petitioning the district court to declare that a 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and a Stock Domestic Relations Order issued by a Texas state court are invalid. Counsel for Lundstrom conceded this during oral argument. Because Claims 4 and 5 meet the two-part test from Kougasian, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims under Rooker-Feldman and properly dismissed them. See id. 3 2. Lundstrom's remaining claims are not barred by Rooker-Feldman."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d30503-ec0f-4404-8ac4-08e1236f5e17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4679847 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679847 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d30503-ec0f-4404-8ac4-08e1236f5e17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24d30503-ec0f-4404-8ac4-08e1236f5e17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4679847-4679847","title":"CourtListener opinion 4679847","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ing counts 2 through 5 he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Appellant also pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 6), violating a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 7), infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 10), and making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 14). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 39 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial alleging spectator"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4681046 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681046 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: such decree.\" Code § 20-109.1. Code § 20-107.3(K) provides for the continuing jurisdiction of a circuit court to enter orders - 10 - \"necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [that] section.\" This includes the authority to enter qualified domestic relations orders dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of twenty-one days following the entry of the final decree. See Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 797 (1994) (noting that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) \"creates a limited exception to the strict directive of Rule 1:1\"). However, the qualified domestic relations order entered may not \"modify a final di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: il she dies, remarries, or is in a relationship analogous to marriage for a period of one (1) year or more. Husband and wife shall share the cost of maintaining the Survivor Benefit equally. Subsections b and d of Paragraph 14 of the MSA, titled \"Pension/Retirement Plans and Accounts,\" read in part as follows: -4- b. Wife will receive the non-modifiable amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($2,400.00) per month for a period of ten (10) years, from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2030, from Husband's FERS Disability Retirement Annuity . . . . The Two Thousand Four Hundred dollar ($2,400.00) per month amount will not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iary until she dies, remarries, or is in a relationship analogous to marriage for a period of one (1) year or more. Husband and wife shall share the cost of maintaining the Survivor Benefit equally. Subsections b and d of Paragraph 14 of the MSA, titled \"Pension/Retirement Plans and Accounts,\" read in part as follows: -4- b. Wife will receive the non-modifiable amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($2,400.00) per month for a period of ten (10) years, from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2030, from Husband's FERS Disability Retirement Annuity . . . . The Two Thousand Four Hundred dollar ($2,400.00) per month"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f5cdec94-675a-423c-a08f-246dc5b10d5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681046-4681046","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681046","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ee.\" Code § 20-109.1. Code § 20-107.3(K) provides for the continuing jurisdiction of a circuit court to enter orders - 10 - \"necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [that] section.\" This includes the authority to enter qualified domestic relations orders dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of twenty-one days following the entry of the final decree. See Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 797 (1994) (noting that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) \"creates a limited exception to the strict directive of Rule 1:1\"). However, the qualified domestic relations order entered may not \"modify a final di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4681733 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ADRIANA SIKYTA AND JASON SIKYTA Upon the Petition of ADRIANA SIKYTA. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 19-2136. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681733 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eductions for both children. The court awarded Jason $1837 in monthly child support, which would decrease to $1343 when only one child remained eligible. The court ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ourt ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for their own student loan debts, most of which accrued during the marriage. The court highlighted that Adriana's student loan debt in th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: for both children. The court awarded Jason $1837 in monthly child support, which would decrease to $1343 when only one child remained eligible. The court ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"12f5fd23-4be9-4608-8a6c-16c214a92019","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681733-4681733","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681733","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"19-2136","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: contributions by one party with the expectation of future reciprocation or compensation by the other party. .... (j) Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 9 Iowa Code § 598.21A(1) (2018). \"We consider alimony and property division together in assessing their individual sufficiency. They are neither made nor subject to evaluation in isolation from one another.\" In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994); see also In re Marriage of Smario, No. 10-1274, 2011 WL 2089593, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2011). Our supreme court recently affirmed a complete d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4681734 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFERY MAU AND ANN MARIE MAU Upon the Petition of JEFFERY MAU. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 20-1422. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681734 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: AU, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge. Jeffery Mau appeals from the district court's ruling on the entry of the parties' qualified domestic relations order. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Paul L. Macek of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Davenport, for appellant. Ryan M. Beckenbaugh of H.J. Dane Law Office, Davenport, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to approve a qualified domestic relations o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tipulation stated: ASSETS IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED the Petitioner, JEFFERY MAU, is awarded all right, title, and interest in the following assets: . . . the petitioner's Ameriprise Account. Provided that the Ameriprise qualified accounts (the retirement accounts) shall be divided as follows: $100,000 of the qualified accounts shall be rolled over into a 401k, IRA or other retirement account to be established or designated by the Respondent and shall be the property of the Respondent. $11,000.00 of the qualified accounts shall remain in the qualified account and shall be the property of the petitioner. In res"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the parties' assets and liabilities and [was] in the 1 In In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996), the court expressed the equation as follows: [Wife]'s # of years [Husband] was share = both married and covered by x 50% x value of the pension plan monthly pension benefit # of years covered by plan prior to conclusion (maturity) 545 N.W.2d at 255. 3 best interest of the parties.\" (Emphasis added.) The district court filed a dissolution decree making \"the terms and provisions\" of the parties' \"Stipulation and Agreement . . . a part of [the] Decree\" and incorporating them and making them \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"156b252d-cab4-4047-a6cf-ff7f14f3e004","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4681734-4681734","title":"CourtListener opinion 4681734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1422","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): , title, and interest in the following assets: . . . the petitioner's Ameriprise Account. Provided that the Ameriprise qualified accounts (the retirement accounts) shall be divided as follows: $100,000 of the qualified accounts shall be rolled over into a 401k, IRA or other retirement account to be established or designated by the Respondent and shall be the property of the Respondent. $11,000.00 of the qualified accounts shall remain in the qualified account and shall be the property of the petitioner. In respect to this sum of $11,000.00, the Petitioner shall benefit by any increase in value of this sum or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4682042 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682042 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ppellant a reasonable time in which to comply. Specifically, Appellee requested the court clarify the order to include date of service in the armed forces, the date of marriage and the date of divorce. Moreover, Appellee requested the court sign a Military QDRO. At the hearing on Appellee's motion to clarify, the trial court heard no testimony; instead, counsel for both parties presented argument. Appellee requested a clarification of the Decree to show that the parties were married for nine years and to provide for Appellant's dates of service in months and years. The additional information, counsel indicate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 2DCM04038) § OPINION This appeal concerns a motion to clarify a decree of divorce between Appellant Barry Watret and Appellee Teresita Watret. In two issues, Appellant asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction to clarify the division of his Air Force retirement benefits because the terms in the decree were unambiguous, and the statute of limitations barred Appellee from seeking such clarification. Finding no error, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND On August 27, 2012, Appellant and Appellee appeared before the trial court in person and through their respective attorneys of record to enter an agreed final divorce judgment. 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ty to Husband ... H-3: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the husband's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to: a. Texas Dept. of Corrections 2 H-4: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"567d5658-e1f9-4761-ac2f-ab60f73b6b17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682042-4682042","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682042","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the husband's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to: a. Texas Dept. of Corrections 2 H-4: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4682306 Extracted case name: C.D.G. v. N.J.S. Extracted reporter citation: 35 S.W.3d 841. Docket: 2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682306 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Brett R. Turner, 18 No. 1 Divorce Litig. 1 (January 2006). See also Atkisson v. Atkisson, 298 S.W.3d 858, 867 (Ky. App. 2009) (\"Trial court should consider th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sted.24 Laura argues that Scott's right to participate 20 Id. at 195. 21 See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. App. 1995) (holding nonvested shares of stock as marital property); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. App. 1986) (holding nonvested military pension to be marital property); In re Marriage of Short, 890 P.2d 12, 13 (Wash. 1995) (Unvested stock options were part community property and part separate property.); but see In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996) (Shares of restricted stock granted during marriage constituted marital property in their entirety.). 22 411 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. App. 2013)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: gment in equitably dividing the marital property.44 KRS 403.190 outlines principal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Brett R. Turner, 18 No. 1 Divorce Litig. 1 (January 2006). See also Atkisson v."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8745947c-b91c-4ae7-a302-22994858eb42","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682306-4682306","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682306","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":"35 S.W.3d 841","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): h Aetna regarding a merger, clouding Scott's job outlook due to likely restructuring. This merger was never consummated. In addition to the RSUs, the parties contested the classification and equitable distribution of two other pieces of property: Scott's 401k and a plot of unimproved land in Wyoming. The 401k was valued at $499,879. At issue was the portion of the 401k deemed Scott's nonmarital property. The account consisted of funds derived from Scott's employment at Humana during the marriage, Honeywell both prior to and during the marriage, and the Secret Service and British Aerospace prior to the marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4682678 Docket: 353272 Grand Traverse Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682678 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: purposes of plaintiff's federal pension, and spousal support was waived. One of the provisions stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein's, Office of Personnel Management pension shall be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and Terri J. Hein, shall be considered a surviving spouse for purposes of distribution of this pension benefit. The meaning of \"divided equally\" would prove contentious and underlies this appeal. Initially, however, both parties confirmed their agreement with those terms, although defendant asked for a delay in the proceedings so she could attend a medica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n MCL 552.101(4), which provides: For any divorce or separate maintenance action filed on or after September 1, 2006, if a judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance provides for the assignment of any rights in and to any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits shall be included in the assignment unless the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes 1 or more components. Components include, but are not limited to, supplements, subsidies, early retirement benefits, postretirement benefit in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e: JANSEN, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and GADOLA, JJ. RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. In this consolidated appeal in this divorce proceeding, plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein, appeals by right and by leave granted1 the trial court's order directing that 50% of plaintiff's federal pension annuity would be paid to defendant, Terri Jo Hein, for the entire existence of the annuity, even if defendant were to predecease plaintiff. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1 Plaintiff apparently was uncertain whether the trial court's order was appealable by right, so he simultaneously pursued an appeal by right and an appeal by leave. Both"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0fec0135-069f-4b61-bcfc-b8950fcca8e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682678-4682678","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682678","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"353272 Grand Traverse Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of plaintiff's federal pension, and spousal support was waived. One of the provisions stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein's, Office of Personnel Management pension shall be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and Terri J. Hein, shall be considered a surviving spouse for purposes of distribution of this pension benefit. The meaning of \"divided equally\" would prove contentious and underlies this appeal. Initially, however, both parties confirmed their agreement with those terms, although defendant asked for a delay in the proceedings so she could attend a medica"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4682977 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of STEPHEN. Extracted reporter citation: 126 Cal.App.4th 726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682977 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lso 7 \"may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party,\" including \"[a]n order to provide a security interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from that party's share of a retirement plan or plans\" or \"an interim order requiring the party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the death of the party but for the judgment granting a dissolution of the status of the marriage, pending entry o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: for late adjudication. Appellant wife contends that the trial court erred because its orders issued in conjunction with the termination of marriage adversely impact her health insurance coverage and do not adequately protect her interest in community property retirement accounts. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Stephen Saltzman (Husband) and Randy Schienberg Saltzman (Wife) married on August 17, 1991. They have a 17- year-old daughter and an adult son. On December 14, 2017, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage based on irreconcilable differences, contending that the parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: gment consistent with the Findings and Order After Hearing issued September 17, 2019. Husband attached a proposed judgment, consisting of Judicial Council Forms FL-180 (Judgment), FL-347 (Bifurcation of Status of Marriage or Domestic Partnership), and FL-348 (Pension Benefits—Attachment to Judgment). Wife opposed the proposed judgment and request for order, and after briefing the matter came on for hearing on December 6, 2019. The trial court concluded that the form of the proposed judgment was appropriate and accurately reflected the order after hearing, rejected Wife's arguments that the orders on 4 health insuran"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e3f3c0-2949-4df9-8cbb-d1ff8e63d9a3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4682977-4682977","title":"CourtListener opinion 4682977","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"126 Cal.App.4th 726","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party,\" including \"[a]n order to provide a security interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from that party's share of a retirement plan or plans\" or \"an interim order requiring the party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the death of the party but for the judgment granting a dissolution of the status of the marriage, pending entry o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4683294 Extracted case name: MARY CUNNINGHAM v. GERARD CUNNINGHAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4683294 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t to a third party, (2) requiring the plaintiff to share in the cost of the 50 percent joint survivor annuity election under the pension plan, and (3) adopting a formula that could result in an unjustified reduction to the plaintiff's mari- tal portion of the retirement benefit that she receives under the pension plan. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are neces- sary to our determination of the issues presented on appeal. On March 9, 2011, the trial court rendered a dissolution judgment, terminating the parties' marriage. In its memorandum of decision, the court is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the decision of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for a domestic relations order relating to distribu- tions from his pension plan. In the trial court's memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court ordered that the defendant's pension benefit held with his employer, D Co., be divided with the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking the entry of a domestic relations order with regard to the pension benefit, attached to which was a pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: motion, the court, in stating its intention to enter an order substantially as submitted by the defendant, indi- cated that, without paragraph 10, if the defendant prede- ceased the plaintiff, the plaintiff ‘‘may get the entire [survivor benefit] as . . . the alternate payee. But that clearly is not what the court intended.'' Furthermore, the court anticipated at the time that it rendered the dissolution judgment that an order like the 2019 order might be necessary by stating in the judgment that the court retained jurisdiction ‘‘to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to . . . the division of the [pension benefit]."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3759b3ca-cde2-4c81-b7ca-31073fc5861b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683294-4683294","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683294","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ARD CUNNINGHAM (AC 43297) Bright, C. J., and Elgo and Cradle, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the decision of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for a domestic relations order relating to distribu- tions from his pension plan. In the trial court's memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court ordered that the defendant's pension benefit held with his employer, D Co., be divided with the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking the entry of a domestic relations order with regard to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4683781 Extracted case name: HILLMAN v. HILLMAN. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4683781 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Before the m"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCE"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cd7b1b82-b700-472d-be70-21456ffc62d6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4683781-4683781","title":"CourtListener opinion 4683781","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the Court pursuant to its minute entry dated October 4, 2016, and filed on October 5, 2016. ¶4 The decree makes similar references on several issues, including joint legal decision-making, parenting time, child support, tax deductions, spousal maintenance, community property, and the marital residence. For example, the superior court ordered husband to pay monthly spousal maintenance of $1,600, noting \"details of same are set forth in the parties' Rule 69 Agreement.\" ¶5 Several months after the decree, the parties met with a series of QDRO attorneys because disputes arose over spousal maintenance and wife's share of husband's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c17b4c8-205a-4a8b-876a-ac429088ac71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4685607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4685607 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4685607 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c17b4c8-205a-4a8b-876a-ac429088ac71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4685607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c17b4c8-205a-4a8b-876a-ac429088ac71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4685607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: had not paid her for her interest in the marital vehicles, marital personal property, marital debt, and marital home, as previously ordered by the circuit court. Lastly, she requested an award of attorney's fees because she had incurred fees to prepare the qualified domestic relations orders after husband had failed to do so. On August 13, 2019, the circuit court entered an order finding that husband had not complied with its previous orders. The circuit court entered an income withholding order for the monthly spousal support and a \"temporary arrearage amount.\" In addition, the circuit court ordered husband to pay a portion of wife's at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c17b4c8-205a-4a8b-876a-ac429088ac71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4685607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: id her for her interest in the marital vehicles, marital personal property, marital debt, and marital home, as previously ordered by the circuit court. Lastly, she requested an award of attorney's fees because she had incurred fees to prepare the qualified domestic relations orders after husband had failed to do so. On August 13, 2019, the circuit court entered an order finding that husband had not complied with its previous orders. The circuit court entered an income withholding order for the monthly spousal support and a \"temporary arrearage amount.\" In addition, the circuit court ordered husband to pay a portion of wife's at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c17b4c8-205a-4a8b-876a-ac429088ac71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4685607-4685607","title":"CourtListener opinion 4685607","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: order continuing the matter. In his reply brief, husband argues that Code § 20-107.3(K) allows a circuit court \"to 2 make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce\" its previously entered orders. The provisions of Code § 20-107.3 refer to equitable distribution, not spousal support. -5- permitted to ‘approbate and reprobate' by ‘disavow[ing] on appeal the very argument [he] made at trial' because ‘a litigant may not take successive positions in the course of litigation that are either inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory.'\" (quoting Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Areva NP, Inc., 292 Va. 165, 204 (2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4686239 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHIRLEY A. FLAHERTY AND JEFFREY B. FLAHERTY Upon the Petition of SHIRLEY A. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 20-0068. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4686239 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ. 2 SCHUMACHER, Judge. Jeffrey Flaherty appeals from an award of spousal support and certain economic provisions of a dissolution decree, including the approval of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the amount of the cash settlement to offset Jeffrey's receipt of personal property, and the award of attorney fees. Upon our de novo review, we find it equitable to affirm the monthly amount of spousal support but modify its duration. We reduce the property equalization payment to reflect the agreement recited on the record. We affirm the other provis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ation payment in the amount of $279,888. The payment was to be satisfied as follows: 1. $40,000 cash by January 15, 2020; 2. Prompt execution of a QDRO, prepared by [Shirley's] counsel, for the transfer of $160,000 from [Jeffrey's] 401(k) to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) set up by [Shirley] to receive those funds; 3. $40,000 from [Jeffrey's] share of proceeds from the sale of the marital homestead . . . ; and 4. Installment payments of $500 on the 15th day of each month, beginning February 15, 2020, and continuing until the property judgment is fully satisfied. As explained in section III.B below, we reduce the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: member working on the factory floor. He worked his way up to his current position in logistics, where he is responsible for the long-term planning and scheduling of the manufacturing lines. Jeffrey's employment at Kraft Heinz affords him a 401(k) plan, a pension plan, and a health savings account. His salary in 2018 was $81,690. Jeffrey finds the obligations of his employment stressful. He consistently works fifty to sixty hours per week. The recent merger between Kraft and Heinz has made his job more demanding, with fewer employees in the logistics department and the introduction of new products. Jeffrey fee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9bd0337-c743-462d-bd23-9936c4a2fd64","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4686239-4686239","title":"CourtListener opinion 4686239","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0068","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Heinz as a team member working on the factory floor. He worked his way up to his current position in logistics, where he is responsible for the long-term planning and scheduling of the manufacturing lines. Jeffrey's employment at Kraft Heinz affords him a 401(k) plan, a pension plan, and a health savings account. His salary in 2018 was $81,690. Jeffrey finds the obligations of his employment stressful. He consistently works fifty to sixty hours per week. The recent merger between Kraft and Heinz has made his job more demanding, with fewer employees in the logistics department and the introduction of new prod"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4688382 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heroy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4688382 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ses were to be paid from the spousal maintenance payments; at the time of the dissolution of marriage in 2012, the parties had three minor children in Anne's care, but there was currently only one minor child in her care; at the time of the dissolution, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) were entered, which equally divided Greg's retirement and deferred compensation plans between the parties; at the 7 time of the parties' MSA, Greg had base gross income of $38,380 per month plus significant additional short-term and long-term incentive pay; on July 1, 2017, defendant opted to retire as the result of being forced to choose"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ings in 2011 (valued at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the disso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"83e868b1-5566-492b-8dba-ec7e6c051f4b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688382-4688382","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688382","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): erty division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine chil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4688963 Extracted case name: MR KEVIN NEAL CROSS-APPELLANT CROSS-APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DEANNA WISE HENSCHEL. Extracted reporter citation: 540 S.W.3d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4688963 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ehicles, the husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife shall be responsible for obtaining her own health insurance. She has not had health insurance coverage since 2008. She was unable to provide the Court with any information or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: debt. The wife has a Maxima with no debt, however an estimated value was not provided to the Court. 10. To equitably resolve the awards of accounts and vehicles, the husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: es. We held that under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to award the wife maintenance past her retirement age because at that point \"the parties' income levels will be more equal since [the wife] will be entitled to half of [the husband's] pension, as he will be entitled to half of hers.\" Id. at 286. We disagree with Kevin that Weldon is dispositive. While Tonya was awarded half of Kevin's retirement, approximately $50,000, unlike the wife in Weldon, Tonya does not have her own retirement account or the realistic prospect -15- of securing employment that will fund a retirement or ever equal Ke"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ca3d7ab8-1684-4090-b4bc-f44cf134c15c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4688963-4688963","title":"CourtListener opinion 4688963","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"540 S.W.3d 384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife shall be responsible for obtaining her own health insurance. She has not had health insurance coverage since 2008. She was unable to provide the Court with any information or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd8a7ad-9af8-47a4-8879-8daf58710e82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691600","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of hours worked or offer any other details. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4691600 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey & Echols. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of hours worked or offer any other details. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4691600 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd8a7ad-9af8-47a4-8879-8daf58710e82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691600","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of hours worked or offer any other details. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd8a7ad-9af8-47a4-8879-8daf58710e82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691600","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of hours worked or offer any other details. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: trial, the court granted Patricia a divorce on her alleged grounds and awarded her 55% of Billy's disposable military retired pay, $5,000 in attorney's fees, and an additional $30,000 in conditional appellate attorney's fees. A final decree of divorce and domestic relations order reflecting the same, along with other relief, was entered thereafter. Billy timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Billy argues the trial court erred by awarding Patricia (1) a portion of his disability payments, (2) attorney's fees, and (3) conditional appellate attorney's fees. DISCUSSION A. Disposable Retired Pay and Disability Payments In"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd8a7ad-9af8-47a4-8879-8daf58710e82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691600-4691600","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691600","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of hours worked or offer any other details. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 9, 614 (Tex. 2007). A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support its decision. Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549. Moreover, a trial court's mere mischaracterization of separate property as community property does not require reversal for abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Ramsey & Echols, 487 S.W.3d 762, 766-67 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Instead, an appellant has the burden of showing that any disparity in the property division was caused by the mischaracterization and the disparity was so substantial that it constituted an abuse of the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4691646 Extracted case name: VERZAL v. VERZAL. Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.W.2d 300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4691646 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ther than another. 3. Divorce: Property Division: Equity. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 4. Divorce: Pensions. A qualified domestic relations order implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. 5. Divorce: Property Division. In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. 6. Property Division. Equitable property division is a three-step process. The first step is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: stribution of their household goods and vehicles. Michelle's request for alimony was denied. The district court valued the marital residence at $300,000 and awarded it to Michelle, subject to its mortgage of $197,673. Michelle was also awarded her employment retirement account valued at $93,154 and an investment account valued at $11,057. To Joshua, the court awarded his employment 401K retirement account with a value of $208,828, his employment 457 retire- ment account with a value of $12,277, his employment pension with a value of $103,408, and personal debt totaling $3,336. To equalize the distribution of the marital estate, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 65 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 4. Divorce: Pensions. A qualified domestic relations order implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. 5. Divorce: Property Division. In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. 6. Property Division. Equitable property division is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties' property as marital or nonma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88c987b0-4c61-44a9-8aa4-24b7cf0b9beb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4691646-4691646","title":"CourtListener opinion 4691646","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"906 N.W.2d 300","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rital residence at $300,000 and awarded it to Michelle, subject to its mortgage of $197,673. Michelle was also awarded her employment retirement account valued at $93,154 and an investment account valued at $11,057. To Joshua, the court awarded his employment 401K retirement account with a value of $208,828, his employment 457 retire- ment account with a value of $12,277, his employment pension with a value of $103,408, and personal debt totaling $3,336. To equalize the distribution of the marital estate, the district court ordered Joshua to pay to Michelle, within 6 months of the entry of the decree, an equalization"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4693031 Extracted case name: In re Estate of MacAnally. Extracted reporter citation: 20 P.3d 1197. Docket: 20CA0038 El Paso County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693031 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , superseding state laws that \"relate to any employee benefit plan,\" id. § 1144(a). Id. at 885. 24 ¶ 41 Notably, Congress created an exception from ERISA's preemption and anti-alienation provisions for a narrow category of state court orders known as qualified domestic relations orders. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). \"Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.\" Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17 (1980). As the district court in this case noted in its well-reasoned order,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: RISA does not contain a statutory order of precedence, \"the protection of beneficiaries . . . [is] a paramount ERISA objective.\" VanderKam v. VanderKam, 776 F.3d 883, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2015). As the District of Columbia Circuit has explained, ERISA protects retirement benefits for millions of pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Finding that the stability of retirement benefits directly affects the national economy, id. § 1001(a), Congress acted to ensure that accrued benefits remain unaltered by individuals and states alike. It accomplished this by prohibiting participants from assigni"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: personally liable for the amount of the payment . . . , to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted. § 15-11-804(8)(b). C. ERISA ¶ 17 \"ERISA is a comprehensive statute regulating employee pension and welfare plans.\" Estate of MacAnally, 20 P.3d at 1199. \"The purpose of ERISA is ‘to protect the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans and to ensure that plans and plan sponsors are subject to a uniform body of benefit law . . . .'\" Id. at 1201 (quoting Barrett v. Hay, 893 P.2d 1372, 1380 (Colo. App. 1995)). ¶"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"69554453-fd48-4150-bef6-20217311a88b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693031-4693031","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20CA0038 El Paso County District","extracted_reporter_citation":"20 P.3d 1197","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. SUMMARY May 27, 2021 2021COA75 No. 20CA0038 Ragan v. Ragan — Employment Law — ERISA; General Provisions Concerning Probate and Nonprobate Transfers — Revocation of Probate and Nonprobate Transfers by Divorce This appeal concerns the interplay between Colorado's divorce revocation statute, section 15-11-804, C.R.S. 2020, under which any beneficiary designation of a former spouse is automatically revoked upon divorce, and the Employee R"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4693299 Extracted reporter citation: 787 F.2d 1569. Docket: 20-1034C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693299 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix (\"DA\") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Court concludes the United States reasonably awarded the survivorship benefits to Diane. Accordingly, the United States' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is GRANTED, and Gayle 's Cross-Motion is DENIED. I. Background United States military retirement benefits include payments to survivors of retired military personnel under the Survivor Benefit Plan (\"SBP\"), 10 U.S.C. § 1447 et seq. Upon the death of a retired service member enrolled in the SBP, a percentage of the decedent's retirement benefits will continue to be paid as a monthly annuity to the surviving beneficiary. (Id.). When a service member becomes elig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . 20). 2 The Judgment of Divorce issued by the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and dated March 6, 2001, provided that Diane would be: [D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d339958-f1bd-4cf5-9be6-d0f82c12e074","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693299-4693299","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693299","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix (\"DA\") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4693688 Extracted reporter citation: 787 F.2d 1569. Docket: 20-1034C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693688 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix (\"DA\") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Court concludes the United States reasonably awarded the survivorship benefits to Diane. Accordingly, the United States' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is GRANTED, and Gayle 's Cross-Motion is DENIED. I. Background United States military retirement benefits include payments to survivors of retired military personnel under the Survivor Benefit Plan (\"SBP\"), 10 U.S.C. § 1447 et seq. Upon the death of a retired service member enrolled in the SBP, a percentage of the decedent's retirement benefits will continue to be paid as a monthly annuity to the surviving beneficiary. (Id.). When a service member becomes elig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . 20). 2 The Judgment of Divorce issued by the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and dated March 6, 2001, provided that Diane would be: [D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3ead42fa-63d9-4d18-8325-c4283ec286ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4693688-4693688","title":"CourtListener opinion 4693688","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1034C","extracted_reporter_citation":"787 F.2d 1569","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix (\"DA\") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc5d9146-9b34-4c6d-8d11-24813b72be5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696072","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20 NO 0472 Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4696072 Extracted case name: T.C. v. K.C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20 NO 0472 Civil. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4696072 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc5d9146-9b34-4c6d-8d11-24813b72be5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696072","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20 NO 0472 Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc5d9146-9b34-4c6d-8d11-24813b72be5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696072","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20 NO 0472 Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: al court \"shall consider all of the following factors\": (a) The income of the parties, from all sources, * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties;"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc5d9146-9b34-4c6d-8d11-24813b72be5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696072","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20 NO 0472 Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iction over the division of assets and liabilities; improperly ordered marital assets to be liquidated at public auction; utilized an exhibit that was not offered or admitted at trial; and failed to dispose of all assets and liabilities. {¶26} \"[W]e review a domestic relations order dividing marital assets and liabilities on an abuse of discretion standard.\" Locke v. Locke, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 99-CO- 18, 2000 WL 1847661, * 2 (Dec. 12, 2000), citing Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 94. \"An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc5d9146-9b34-4c6d-8d11-24813b72be5c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696072-4696072","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696072","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20 NO 0472 Civil","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: property, and then divide the marital property equitably between the spouses. R.C. 3105.171(B).\" Lunger v. Lunger, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 16 CO 0026, 2017-Ohio-9008, ¶ 9. {¶28} In its January 13, 2020 judgment entry, the trial court stated the following: PROPERTY DIVISION The assets and liabilities are set forth in Defendant's exhibit A (attached). There is also the law suit against the Schleappi's. The assets and liabilities are marital. Plaintiff is awarded the 2015 Kia and should pay any debt thereon. Defendant is awarded 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and shall pay any debt thereon. Unless otherwise agreed by the par"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4696743 Extracted reporter citation: 960 F.3d 736. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4696743 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 20641 contribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to Broussard's contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that would have provided her with a spouse's benefit such as an annuity. The letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed this lawsuit. Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-1986 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Medora Chetlin filed this suit against Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation (\"Exxon\") after it denied her claim for her deceased ex-husband's retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 No. 20-20641 1974 (\"ERISA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 No. 20-20641 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Exxon. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Facts & Procedural History Nathan Broussard was employed by Exxon from 1968 to March 1982. He was enrolled in the Mobil Oil Retirement Annuity Plan. Broussard and Chetlin were married the first six years that Broussard worked for Exxon and divorc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44fbf3c0-2934-4f44-8fe1-5ddf32506a59","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4696743-4696743","title":"CourtListener opinion 4696743","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"960 F.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to Broussard's contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that would have provided her with a spouse's benefit such as an annuity. The letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed this lawsuit. Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4700508 Extracted case name: GARCIA v. GARCIA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4700508 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the Public Safety Pension Retirement System (\"PSRS Plan\"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife \"the entirety of the deferred compensation,\" and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare \"any necessary\" qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") using the reserved jurisdiction method to equitably divide the remaining assets, including Wife's PSRS Plan. The court also granted Wife's request for reasonable attorney fees and costs because \"Husband acted unreasonably in the litigation.\" Though the court stated it had \"signed the submitted order\" granting attorney fees, it had not. II. Post-D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ever collect on a personal judgment against Husband. ¶9 In the end, however, the court awarded Wife an independent $40,000 judgment against Husband with simple interest to accrue at 5.5% per annum. The court concluded it was likely \"impossible to divide the retirement accounts and compensate Wife in the way the Decree 3 GARCIA v. GARCIA Decision of the Court described.\" On one hand, the reserve jurisdiction method would deprive Wife of accrued interest, and Wife might still not recover $40,000 from Husband depending on \"the amount of the monthly retirement payments\" and \"how long she lived.\" On the other hand, the court cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e court found Husband wasted $40,000 in community assets and determined this case \"present[s] a unique set of facts or circumstance\" in which an \"unequal division of community property [was] appropriate to achieve equity.\" The court also found that Wife had a pension and deferred compensation plan through the Public Safety Pension Retirement System (\"PSRS Plan\"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife \"the entirety of the deferred compensation,\" and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare \"any necessary\" qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") using the reserv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a151fb6-0aef-4979-af84-01a9afa5dec6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4700508-4700508","title":"CourtListener opinion 4700508","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Safety Pension Retirement System (\"PSRS Plan\"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife \"the entirety of the deferred compensation,\" and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare \"any necessary\" qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") using the reserved jurisdiction method to equitably divide the remaining assets, including Wife's PSRS Plan. The court also granted Wife's request for reasonable attorney fees and costs because \"Husband acted unreasonably in the litigation.\" Though the court stated it had \"signed the submitted order\" granting attorney fees, it had not. II. Post-D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4701742 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4701742 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: serting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to return his personal belongings to him as ordered by the trial court. In March 2019, the trial court granted Husband's motion to file a corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) clarifying the proper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this inform"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed by this court in November 2013. See Tomes v. Tomes, No. M2012-02441-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 6196296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2013). In January 2017, Wife filed a petition for civil contempt alleging that Husband failed to pay temporary spousal support and TVA retirement benefits as ordered in the trial court's final decree. Wife further asserted that Husband failed to inform her whether he was receiving social security benefits and that she was entitled to half of those benefits. Husband answered, denying Wife's allegations, and filed a counterpetition asserting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: roper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this information had not been disclosed during the divorce proceedings. A hearing was held on May 6, 2020, on Wife's petition for contempt and Rule 60 motion as well as Husband's counterpetition. After the hearing, each party submitted a list of personal property items at issue and their estim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5f28130e-b8a4-4f1b-a029-d88aa56cfa68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4701742-4701742","title":"CourtListener opinion 4701742","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: filed a counterpetition asserting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to return his personal belongings to him as ordered by the trial court. In March 2019, the trial court granted Husband's motion to file a corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) clarifying the proper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4703080 Extracted reporter citation: 166 N.E.3d 1180. Docket: from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4703080 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rriage ended in divorce on October 17, 2001. In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System would \"be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order].\" The court clerk served the divorce decree on Gregory at his mother's address, 2250 Greenridge Drive in Wickliffe, Ohio. Gregory had used that address because he had moved out of the marital home, which was located at 2597 Townline Road in Madison, Ohio, and was relocating to 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the Washington,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: However, R.C. 3105.171(I) does not explicitly divest the domestic-relations court of its subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, any error in the domestic-relations court's exercise of its 2 January Term, 2021 jurisdiction in issuing an order that divides retirement benefits in a way that modifies a divorce decree in violation of R.C. 3105.171(I) renders the resulting order voidable, not void. See Harper at ¶ 26. {¶ 5} Appellee, Gregory F. Ostanek, moved to vacate an order that set forth how his federal retirement benefits would be shared with his former spouse, appellant, Julia M. Ostanek. In that motion, he asserted that th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ment of error that it declined to address as moot. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 7} Julia and Gregory Ostanek's 23-year marriage ended in divorce on October 17, 2001. In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System would \"be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order].\" The court clerk served the divorce decree on Gregory at his mother's address, 2250 Greenridge Drive in Wickliffe, Ohio. Gregory had used that address because he had moved out of the marital home, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"613b9827-c76e-4998-a0ce-62190cc2d296","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4703080-4703080","title":"CourtListener opinion 4703080","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr","extracted_reporter_citation":"166 N.E.3d 1180","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: April 23, 2001) and the denominator of which is the total number of months of the Employee's Creditable Service accrued under the Federal Employees Retirement System.\" (Emphasis sic.) The order also required OPM to 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO provide Julia a survivor benefit and for Julia and Gregory to share the cost of that benefit equally. {¶ 13} The domestic-relations court did not direct the clerk to serve the order on Gregory, nor is there an entry on the docket indicating that the clerk served it on him. See Civ.R. 58(B) (\"When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereon a direction to the clerk to serve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4704361 Extracted case name: ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING v. PETITIONS FOR BOSCHAL LEE. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.App.5th 340. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4704361 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ir misconduct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018 Judgment On September 19, 2018, the family court issued a judgment that in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ivision of the following property: \"a. Former family residence on Arriba Drive, Monterey Park, CA [(Arriba Drive property)]; \"b. Rental property on Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA [(Grand Avenue property)]; \"c. Mitchell and Company; \"d. Pensions and other retirement accounts; and \"e. Three (3) automobiles. \"(2) Reimbursement for payment of community debts; \"(3) Watts[4] charges for [Boschal's] occupation of the family residence; \"(4) [Lisa's] claims of breach of fiduciary duties, including\" breaches of the restraining orders; \"(5) Child support; \"(6) [Boschal's] request for spousal support; \"(7) [Lisa's] request for at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e to Lisa for her attorney fees and costs for their misconduct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb6bc7c9-5006-4f87-8fa1-2bf74b500b8f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704361-4704361","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704361","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.App.5th 340","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: uct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018 Judgment On September 19, 2018, the family court issued a judgment that in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4704636 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Trigg. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4704636 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eave and earnings statement from April 30, 1994 reflects that at the time of the divorce, Husband had contributed $12,232.85 to the retirement fund and $8,673.44 to the TSP. After the divorce was final, counsel for both parties worked together on drafting the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to be filed with the trial court and submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\"), which is the federal agency that administers the CSRS. On January 13, 1995, then-counsel for Husband submitted a draft QDRO to OPM. On April 27, 1996, OPM responded by letter stating that it does not pre-approve court orders or advise attorneys on how to d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on. Darlene Christmas Murray (\"Wife\") filed a petition for contempt in the General Sessions Court for Roane County (the \"trial court\") in 2015, alleging that her former husband, Louis Wade Godsey (\"Husband\"), should be held in contempt for failing to pay Wife retirement benefits to which she was entitled under their final decree of divorce. The trial court found Husband in contempt and awarded Wife, inter alia, $25,000.00 in attorney's fees as punishment. Because the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court's finding that Husband actually and willfully violated a court order, we reverse. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: om the failure of counsel to draft a COAP, rather than a QDRO, in compliance with the pertinent federal laws and regulations. See Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 543 n.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that QDROs are \"creatures of [ERISA]\" and address private pension plans) (emphasis added); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (addressing QDROs); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) 4 According to Mr. Camp, Husband would have been unable to contact or negotiate with OPM on Wife's behalf even if he attempted to do so. - 14 - (exempting governmental plans from ERISA coverage). Inasmuch as the final decree re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cf62b933-1116-43fa-abd3-fe6417990592","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4704636-4704636","title":"CourtListener opinion 4704636","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: r after receiving no response from OPM. On March 19, 2015, OPM responded to Wife's inquiry, explaining that the 1997 order was insufficient for processing by OPM because it was a QDRO drafted under the auspices of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), and CSRS is a government- administered plan specifically exempt from ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32). Specifically, OPM explained: This court order contains language that is unacceptable under section 838.302 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The court order is labeled as a \"qualified domestic relations ord"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4705297 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA JO TOWNE AND LARRY DEAN TOWNE Upon the Petition of ANGELA JO TOWNE. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 20-0829. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4705297 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: valuing the parties' assets and debts and distributing them as shown by this recapitulation statement: Description of Asset/Debt Angela Larry House Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 $40,317.00 2003 Ford F-150 $500.00 IPERS Divided by QDRO Divided by QDRO TIAA-CREF $4,578.00 Roth IRA $37,037.00 Rollover IRA $34,206.00 401(k) $125,525.00 Boat, motor, and trailer $22,795.00 Older boat $2,000.00 Tools $3,000.00 Guns and bows $2,000.00 Mower, blower, trimmer $1,500.00 Golf cart $100.00 Furniture $7,763.00 $7,763.00 Jewelry $0.00 $0.00 House Mortgage Divided upon sale Divided upon sal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dividual choices each spouse made rather than mutual sacrifices or contributions made to the family\"). As to duration, we see no basis for reducing the spousal support when Larry reaches the age of sixty-seven. Although both parties testified about their retirement plans, which included Larry surmising that he would have to work until he no longer could, Larry's health issues cause too much uncertainty about how long he can continue to work and at what level he could do so to justify reduction of the award at an arbitrary age. Further, we reiterate Angela was awarded almost all retirement assets, which also makes a ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tion statement: Description of Asset/Debt Angela Larry House Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 $40,317.00 2003 Ford F-150 $500.00 IPERS Divided by QDRO Divided by QDRO TIAA-CREF $4,578.00 Roth IRA $37,037.00 Rollover IRA $34,206.00 401(k) $125,525.00 Boat, motor, and trailer $22,795.00 Older boat $2,000.00 Tools $3,000.00 Guns and bows $2,000.00 Mower, blower, trimmer $1,500.00 Golf cart $100.00 Furniture $7,763.00 $7,763.00 Jewelry $0.00 $0.00 House Mortgage Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 loan ($28,578.00) Wife's student loans ($49,693.00) Youngest child stu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dc05ee14-fbc9-4090-a5e6-ae8776b10dab","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4705297-4705297","title":"CourtListener opinion 4705297","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-0829","extracted_reporter_citation":"827 N.W.2d 671","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: challenges the property division and spousal support provisions of the decree, as well as the district court's refusal to order Angela to pay his trial attorney fees. He also requests appellate attorney fees. On her cross-appeal, Angela also challenges the property division and spousal support provisions of the decree and requests appellate attorney fees. I. Background Larry and Angela married in 1991. They moved to Hartley soon thereafter, where they started a family. By the time of their dissolution-of-marriage trial in 2020, Larry was sixty years old, Angela was fifty-eight years old, and they had three boys who were"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4706389 Extracted case name: GINGER LOUGENE HUTSELL DENTON v. STEVEN LEE DENTON. Extracted reporter citation: 32 S.W.3d 222. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4706389 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s about his attorney's failure to prevent an award of alimony to Ms. Denton, Ms. Denton's failure to honor the court's judgment, an order of protection sought by her, the court's division of the retirement funds and pensions, and the difficulty in preparing a qualified domestic relations order satisfactory to his employer. This Court's role is not to pick and choose among the various complaints and designate the issues. The responsibility for designating the issues for review rests on the parties. See TENN. R. APP. P. 27(a)(4), (b). And then we address only the issues designated by the parties. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334 (Tenn. 2012);"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , because of restrictions on his pension and retirement funds, he contended that the division was not currently equitable. Specifically, he argued that it was inequitable for him to receive his share of the equity in the marital realty through his pension and retirement accounts, \"which he cannot access now without severe financial repercussions.\" The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. Acting pro se on appeal, Mr. Denton's handwritten brief does not contain a table of authorities, statement of the issues presented for review, statement of the case, statement of the facts, or conclusion. Instead, the brief merely co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: evidentiary hearing, the Chancery Court for Jefferson County entered a judgment granting the parties a divorce. The judgment also divided the marital estate, including the parties' retirement funds and pensions. The court awarded Ms. Denton her retirement and pension. Mr. Denton received his retirement and pension up to the value of Ms. Denton's retirement and pension plus one-half the equity in real estate and a mobile 1 Under the rules of this Court, memorandum opinions may not be published, \"cited[,] or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.\" TENN. CT. APP. R. 10. home she received as part of the propert"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9316b1d-7b39-47f0-99a3-7923ecd45782","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706389-4706389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"32 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s attorney's failure to prevent an award of alimony to Ms. Denton, Ms. Denton's failure to honor the court's judgment, an order of protection sought by her, the court's division of the retirement funds and pensions, and the difficulty in preparing a qualified domestic relations order satisfactory to his employer. This Court's role is not to pick and choose among the various complaints and designate the issues. The responsibility for designating the issues for review rests on the parties. See TENN. R. APP. P. 27(a)(4), (b). And then we address only the issues designated by the parties. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334 (Tenn. 2012);"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4706807 Extracted case name: NITSCH v. KLAVUHN. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4706807 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Michelle Nitsch (\"Wife\") appeals from the court's entry of the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") awarding Kurt Gustave Klavuhn (\"Husband\") credit for contributions he made to his retirement account after the termination of the marital community, as well as gains attributed to those contributions. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: or the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for legal separation in 2016. The matter was later converted to a dissolution action. ¶3 Husband and Wife both had retirement accounts that existed before their marriage, and both alleged that they could trace premarital, separate property funds in their accounts. During the dissolution proceedings, the superior court found that neither party provided sufficient evidence that their premarital retirement accounts maintained their separate nature. As a result, the court appointed \"a special"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Michelle Nitsch (\"Wife\") appeals from the court's entry of the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") awarding Kurt Gustave Klavuhn (\"Husband\") credit for contributions he made to his retirement account after the termination of the marital community, as well as gains attributed to those contributions. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cf33030-a0ad-47b7-9450-37526e8f5a92","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4706807-4706807","title":"CourtListener opinion 4706807","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 2016. These contributions are Husband's separate property. This would include any gains on the contributions. ¶13 Wife argues the retirement accounts are \"entirely community property in nature\" and the \"increases, rents, and profits from community assets are community property.\" But the retirement accounts cannot be \"entirely\" community property if they contain Husband's post-petition contributions, which she admits are his separate property. Wife cites no 4 NITSCH v. KLAVUHN Decision of the Court legal authority for the proposition that the increases and profits from Husband's separate property should be categorized as comm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4707969 Extracted case name: CORNWELL v. CORNWELL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4707969 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ial matter, we turn to Melanie's assertions (1) that Daniel sought a DRO prohibited by Maryland law and (2) that he has waived any objection to the immediate offset method by failing to object to her expert's testimony. Both assertions are without merit. (a) QDRO Versus DRO Throughout his case, Daniel and his counsel sought use of the deferred distribution method and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). And it appears, at least for purposes of the Maryland pension plan at issue, that the correct term is \"domestic relations order.\" Still, Melanie's contention on appeal is one of semantics—there is nothing in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rce was contentious, with many issues litigated, as is partially reflected by Melanie's cross-appeal regarding the district court's failure to award her attorney fees and costs. However, as noted above, the primary issue on appeal is the valuation of Daniel's retirement plan from his employment with the Maryland State Police. Daniel's retirement plan is a defined benefit plan that has been in pay status since his retirement in 2010. Daniel origi- nally retired on a full service pension, but several months post- retirement, the plan was retroactively changed to a disability pension. Because the plan is in part a disability pens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: retires and orders that the nonowning spouse receive that percentage of every payment check which the owning spouse is entitled to receive. 5. ____: ____: ____. Under the immediate offset method, the court deter- mines the present value of a share in the pension of the owning spouse and immediately awards the nonowning spouse a lump-sum amount in view of that value. 6. Divorce: Attorney Fees. In awarding attorney fees in a dissolution action, a court shall consider the nature of the case, the amount involved - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports CORNWELL v. CORNWELL Cite as 309"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fbbf9b82-58ed-468b-bbac-547729732365","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4707969-4707969","title":"CourtListener opinion 4707969","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ets 309 Nebraska Reports CORNWELL v. CORNWELL Cite as 309 Neb. 156 Daniel's expert, Ernest Goss, challenged the accuracy of that valuation, suggesting that the valuation was speculative on various bases. Instead, Daniel sought to divide the pension via a domestic relations order (DRO). Following a trial, the district court accepted Rosenbaum's valuation for purposes of valuation of the entire marital estate. It then awarded the pension to Daniel and divided the estate in half. Daniel was ordered to make an equalization payment to Melanie in the amount of $403,892, to be payable annually in the amount of $100,000 per year until pai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c97b5927-9450-4bf0-af47-04f128e9202a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"542 S.W.3d 286","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4709641 Extracted case name: MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CATHERINE R. HOLDERFIELD. Extracted reporter citation: 542 S.W.3d 286. Docket: 2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709641 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c97b5927-9450-4bf0-af47-04f128e9202a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"542 S.W.3d 286","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c97b5927-9450-4bf0-af47-04f128e9202a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"542 S.W.3d 286","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pt was filed on August 9. Once again, Selena asked the court to award her attorney's fees. Todd responded to the various motions. He asked the court to order Selena to reimburse him for his attorney's fees incurred as a result of her frivolous filings. A qualified domestic relations order was entered on August 8, 2018. Following a hearing conducted on September 27, 2018, Todd was held in contempt for failing to pay maintenance on a timely basis. He was also required by the court's order to deposit $5,700.00 into the children's 529 accounts and to disgorge $26,920.95 (plus prejudgment interest) and an additional $4,250.00 -4- represen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c97b5927-9450-4bf0-af47-04f128e9202a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"542 S.W.3d 286","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nts were left to the discretion of the therapists. By the terms of the agreement, Selena was released from any obligation to contribute to the support of the children. In a provision included in a portion of the agreement entitled \"Bank Accounts and -2- Retirement Accounts,\" Selena agreed to provide to Todd \"the account information for the 529 plans.\" Each party was to be responsible for his and her own attorney's fees incurred as of the date of the agreement. In the event of a default on any obligation, the defaulting party was required to reimburse the other for any losses and the fees and costs incurred to enforce t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c97b5927-9450-4bf0-af47-04f128e9202a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709641-4709641","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"542 S.W.3d 286","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed on August 9. Once again, Selena asked the court to award her attorney's fees. Todd responded to the various motions. He asked the court to order Selena to reimburse him for his attorney's fees incurred as a result of her frivolous filings. A qualified domestic relations order was entered on August 8, 2018. Following a hearing conducted on September 27, 2018, Todd was held in contempt for failing to pay maintenance on a timely basis. He was also required by the court's order to deposit $5,700.00 into the children's 529 accounts and to disgorge $26,920.95 (plus prejudgment interest) and an additional $4,250.00 -4- represen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c9abfee-4f61-426a-9cc4-5e5ff3dbc3e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"586 S.W.3d 737","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4709648 Extracted case name: MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE STEVE ALAN WILSON. Extracted reporter citation: 586 S.W.3d 737. Docket: 2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709648 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c9abfee-4f61-426a-9cc4-5e5ff3dbc3e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"586 S.W.3d 737","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c9abfee-4f61-426a-9cc4-5e5ff3dbc3e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"586 S.W.3d 737","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s this result. We find Satterfield v. Satterfield, to be supportive of our determination, rather than supportive of the outcome Angela insists. 608 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. App. 2020). In that matter, the wife sought entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) upon the commencement of the husband's retirement, some twenty years after the entry of the decree, when she did not begin receiving a portion thereof as ordered in the decree. The wife then brought an action to have a QDRO entered as the husband had failed to do so as ordered in the decree. The wife took action as soon as she became aware that the hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c9abfee-4f61-426a-9cc4-5e5ff3dbc3e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"586 S.W.3d 737","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: se included: pay Angela half the proceeds from any sale of property located in New Mexico; maintain a life insurance policy with Angela as the beneficiary in the amount of $56,000 payable to her on his death; name Angela as the beneficiary of an individual retirement account (IRA) Leo owned at the time of the divorce; and -2- designate Angela as the beneficiary of his retirement account through the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS), choosing a particular option which would reduce the monthly pension to the retiree but provide a payout to a beneficiary at the retiree's death. Both Angela and Leo remarried over"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c9abfee-4f61-426a-9cc4-5e5ff3dbc3e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709648-4709648","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709648","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"586 S.W.3d 737","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: dual retirement account (IRA) Leo owned at the time of the divorce; and -2- designate Angela as the beneficiary of his retirement account through the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS), choosing a particular option which would reduce the monthly pension to the retiree but provide a payout to a beneficiary at the retiree's death. Both Angela and Leo remarried over the years. Leo remained in Bowling Green and Angela in Tennessee. In 1998, Leo retired from Western Kentucky University. In 2017, he passed away. It was only at Leo's death that it was discovered by Angela that he had not followed the dictat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccf36b25-223a-44a4-bf14-33254978c977","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"when it dismissed Anderson","extracted_reporter_citation":"21 A.3d 62","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4709798 Extracted reporter citation: 21 A.3d 62. Docket: when it dismissed Anderson. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709798 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccf36b25-223a-44a4-bf14-33254978c977","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"when it dismissed Anderson","extracted_reporter_citation":"21 A.3d 62","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccf36b25-223a-44a4-bf14-33254978c977","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"when it dismissed Anderson","extracted_reporter_citation":"21 A.3d 62","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (2) The record reflects that Addalli retained Boyer for assistance with ancillary matters and a custody dispute following Addalli's divorce from her husband. Addalli and her ex-husband agreed to a settlement of the matters, and the Family Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") on July 6, 2016. The QDRO divided the ex-spouses' debts and assets and provided that Addalli's ex-husband would pay alimony and child support totaling $6,500 month. (3) On June 21, 2019, Addalli filed a legal malpractice complaint against Boyer and MacElree Harvey in the Superior Court. She filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2019. Addal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccf36b25-223a-44a4-bf14-33254978c977","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4709798-4709798","title":"CourtListener opinion 4709798","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"when it dismissed Anderson","extracted_reporter_citation":"21 A.3d 62","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: record reflects that Addalli retained Boyer for assistance with ancillary matters and a custody dispute following Addalli's divorce from her husband. Addalli and her ex-husband agreed to a settlement of the matters, and the Family Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") on July 6, 2016. The QDRO divided the ex-spouses' debts and assets and provided that Addalli's ex-husband would pay alimony and child support totaling $6,500 month. (3) On June 21, 2019, Addalli filed a legal malpractice complaint against Boyer and MacElree Harvey in the Superior Court. She filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2019. Addal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4710326 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4710326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erwilliger, United States Attorney, Daniel T. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether and to what extent retirement benefits protected by the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") are subject to criminal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"). The MVRA provides expressly that restitution orders may be enforced against \"all property or rights to property\" and \"[n]otwithstanding any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: A's prohibition on disbursing retirement funds to third parties, and the MVRA's requirement that defendants pay – and courts compel – restitution for certain crimes. In 1974, Congress enacted ERISA to \"protect . . . the interests of participants in private pension plans and their beneficiaries.\" 29 U.S.C. § 1001(c). To achieve that goal, what is known as ERISA's \"anti-alienation\" provision \"broadly protects covered retirement benefits from dissipation through payment to third parties,\" Novak, 476 F.3d at 1045, requiring pension plans to provide that their benefits \"may not be assigned or alienated,\" 29 U.S.C. § 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: EY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether and to what extent retirement benefits protected by the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") are subject to criminal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (\"MVRA\"). The MVRA provides expressly that restitution orders may be enforced against \"all property or rights to property\" and \"[n]otwithstanding any other Federal law.\" See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). Largely for that reason, we agree with the district court that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f882418e-9f9b-46ec-a98e-51d98b8244e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710326-4710326","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710326","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ay be enforced against \"all property or rights to property\" and \"[n]otwithstanding any other Federal law.\" See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). Largely for that reason, we agree with the district court that the MVRA permits the seizure of defendant Jon Lawrence Frank's 401(k) retirement account, notwithstanding ERISA's protections, in order to compensate the victim of his crime. At the same time, we clarify that when the government enforces a restitution order under the MVRA, it stands in the shoes of the defendant himself, acquiring whatever rights to 401(k) retirement funds he possesses – no less, but also no more. That"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b4d07f-d561-4cc7-9b80-b8e2ee0226ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710461","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4710461 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4710461 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b4d07f-d561-4cc7-9b80-b8e2ee0226ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710461","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b4d07f-d561-4cc7-9b80-b8e2ee0226ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710461","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Matter B Respondent represented a client in a domestic matter, and on March 7, 2014, a final decree of divorce was filed. The divorce decree provided that Respondent's client would be responsible for the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the client's pension plan between the parties with both parties being equally responsible for the costs for the preparation of the QDRO. The order further provided that preparation of the QDRO should begin within thirty days of the date of the decree. Respondent agreed to assist his client with the preparation of the QDRO. After various inquiries"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"46b4d07f-d561-4cc7-9b80-b8e2ee0226ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4710461-4710461","title":"CourtListener opinion 4710461","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sented a client in a domestic matter, and on March 7, 2014, a final decree of divorce was filed. The divorce decree provided that Respondent's client would be responsible for the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the client's pension plan between the parties with both parties being equally responsible for the costs for the preparation of the QDRO. The order further provided that preparation of the QDRO should begin within thirty days of the date of the decree. Respondent agreed to assist his client with the preparation of the QDRO. After various inquiries from opposing counsel regarding"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4765562 Docket: 350739 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765562 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t the lake house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court awarded Judy a horse trailer, a van equipped with features for the handicapped, a deferred compensation retirement account held by defendant (by QDRO), her county retirement plan, and any checking and savings accounts currently in her name. The court made her responsible for any credit card or unsecured debts that were solely in her name. The trial court awarded defendant farm and excavation equipment that was not presently located at the marital home or farm, a pickup truck, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fb96e918-8443-44d7-8794-6b76584949ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765562-4765562","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765562","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: r to [Judy] as her sole and separate property, free of any claim of the Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to name her separate beneficiary. Plaintiff appealed by leave granted, and defendant cross-appeals. In its brief on appeal, plaintiff argued that the property division was not fair and equitable with respect to Judy's award of marital assets. Plaintiff contended that the trial court, in awarding the life insurance policy to Judy, gave her an asset that \"she could never benefit from while living.\" Plaintiff noted that the court's attempt to reduce the incongruity between the awards by giving Judy the insurance policy faile"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4765651 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JULIA H. GORDON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765651 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rance policy payable on the death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary designation made in the policy, unless such designation is made after the Decree of Dissolution. 5.2.3. Charles' counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") required to divide the Retirement Accounts and to establish a separate (divided) account in Charles' name only, for his interest -2- and division as described in the preceding paragraph. The QDRO shall be reviewed by counsel for the Parties before being submitted for review to the administrators of the Retirement Accounts for acceptance, before be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Lisa's name are marital property. Lisa has disclosed the existence of two such accounts, a Kentucky state pension and a Kentucky deferred compensation account as a consequence of her employment during the marriage, and all of which are marital property (\"Retirement Accounts\"). Lisa's Retirement Accounts shall be divided equally between the parties, 50/50, based upon the values of the Retirement Accounts as of the date of entry of a Decree of Dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, neither Party shall continue to be a beneficiary under an insurance policy payable on the death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary des"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ts on appeal, we reverse and remand. As part of the dissolution of their marriage, the Russelburgs executed a property settlement agreement. Signed by the parties on December 8, 2015, the agreement contained the following provisions: 5.2 Retirement and Pension Accounts 5.2.1 Charles has a vested interest in a military pension or retirement. The Parties agree that such retirement is Charles' non-marital property, all such interest having been earned prior to the marriage of the Parties. The Parties further agree that Charles does not have any other type of retirement. 5.2.2 Lisa and Charles agree that any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"976c9775-f45f-462b-a54f-8a40f7332ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765651-4765651","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765651","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): interest having been earned prior to the marriage of the Parties. The Parties further agree that Charles does not have any other type of retirement. 5.2.2 Lisa and Charles agree that any life insurance, retirement, pension, deferred compensation, and/or 401K savings accounts or annuity program in Lisa's name are marital property. Lisa has disclosed the existence of two such accounts, a Kentucky state pension and a Kentucky deferred compensation account as a consequence of her employment during the marriage, and all of which are marital property (\"Retirement Accounts\"). Lisa's Retirement Accounts shall be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eaed6f-cb97-4160-8ae9-43e7a500a831","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.2d 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4765652 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE GINA KAY CALVERT. Extracted reporter citation: 168 S.W.2d 738. Docket: 2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765652 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eaed6f-cb97-4160-8ae9-43e7a500a831","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.2d 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eaed6f-cb97-4160-8ae9-43e7a500a831","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.2d 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rial court found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account \"[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts\" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to be drafted by Louanne's attorney. (p. 11 of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered August 1, 2007, attached as Appendix D to Appellee's Brief, also Record (\"R.\"), p. 1041). The parties later agreed that the IRA funds would be transferred into another account without needing to prepare a QDRO, but the transfer apparently was delayed due"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eaed6f-cb97-4160-8ae9-43e7a500a831","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.2d 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: son Family Court also ultimately ordered Charlie to pay Louanne $6,000 a month in maintenance, terminating upon Louanne's remarriage or cohabitation or either party's death or Charlie's turning 65 years old in 2017, whichever happened first. 2 Individual Retirement Account. 3 In the August 2007 divorce decree, the trial court found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account \"[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts\" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to be draft"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"89eaed6f-cb97-4160-8ae9-43e7a500a831","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765652-4765652","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765652","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"168 S.W.2d 738","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account \"[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts\" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to be drafted by Louanne's attorney. (p. 11 of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered August 1, 2007, attached as Appendix D to Appellee's Brief, also Record (\"R.\"), p. 1041). The parties later agreed that the IRA funds would be transferred into another account without needing to prepare a QDRO, but the transfer apparently was delayed due"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827aa63-1cc0-4644-9a7f-cbc36e9e6423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"R.C. 3105.18 allows a","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 N.E.2d 1317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4765662 Extracted reporter citation: 947 N.E.2d 1317. Docket: R.C. 3105.18 allows a. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827aa63-1cc0-4644-9a7f-cbc36e9e6423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"R.C. 3105.18 allows a","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 N.E.2d 1317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827aa63-1cc0-4644-9a7f-cbc36e9e6423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"R.C. 3105.18 allows a","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 N.E.2d 1317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: husband's federal employee retirement system pension, purportedly in compliance with the parties' 2001 divorce decree that had incorporated a stipulation that the husband's retirement would \"be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order].\" The Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to the extent that it granted the wife survivorship benefits, an issue that had not been addressed in the 2001 decree. {¶ 19} A post-decree modification of property division is prohibited by R.C. -11- 3105.171"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827aa63-1cc0-4644-9a7f-cbc36e9e6423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"R.C. 3105.18 allows a","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 N.E.2d 1317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on July 14, 2021, referring us to Ostanek v. Ostanek, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2319, __ N.E.3d __. Ostanek involved a January 22, 2013 trial court order acceptable for processing (COAP) which divided the husband's federal employee retirement system pension, purportedly in compliance with the parties' 2001 divorce decree that had incorporated a stipulation that the husband's retirement would \"be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order].\" The Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827aa63-1cc0-4644-9a7f-cbc36e9e6423","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765662-4765662","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765662","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"R.C. 3105.18 allows a","extracted_reporter_citation":"947 N.E.2d 1317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to the extent that it granted the wife survivorship benefits, an issue that had not been addressed in the 2001 decree. {¶ 19} A post-decree modification of property division is prohibited by R.C. -11- 3105.171(I), which states: \"A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made under this section is not subject to future modification by the court except upon the express written consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses.\" Based on this statute, the Ostanek Court of Appeals held \"[t]he trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4765925 Extracted reporter citation: 361 S.W.3d 615. Docket: 14-19-00646-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765925 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: N THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SHAWN DENNING AND SURRON STOKES On Appeal from the 507th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-21638 OPINION Surron Stokes appeals from the trial court's order denying her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed after the trial court signed a final divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Shawn Denning and enforcing the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). In three issues, Stokes contends that she is entitled to a QDRO that reflects an award of Denning's retirement account contributions expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed after the trial court signed a final divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Shawn Denning and enforcing the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). In three issues, Stokes contends that she is entitled to a QDRO that reflects an award of Denning's retirement account contributions expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions that accrued during the marriage. We reverse the trial court's order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Background Denning filed for divorce in April 2018, and the parties went to mediation. The parties initially agreed that Stokes would receive fifty percent of De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eal)). Accrued state retirement benefits may be divided by a QDRO and paid to a former spouse. Tex. Gov't Code § 841.0091(a); cf. Stavinoha v. Stavinoha, 126 S.W.3d 604, 615 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (discussing QDROs for police officer pension systems). By statute, the state retirement system must divide the accrued benefits to a former spouse in accordance with a QDRO that \"strictly follows the terms and format of the model qualified domestic relations order, as well as any other requirements, adopted by the [TCDRS] board of trustees for this purpose.\" Tex. Gov't Code § 841.0091(a). TCDRS, throu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e779800-7aaf-4995-8682-5448ca37bc68","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4765925-4765925","title":"CourtListener opinion 4765925","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"14-19-00646-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"361 S.W.3d 615","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: [Denning's] retirement with TCDRS earned from the date of marriage . . . is awarded to [Stokes]. The remainder of [Denning's] retirement with TCDRS earned from the date of marriage . . . is awarded to [Denning].\" As a prerequisite to releasing the funds to an alternate payee, TCDRS requires a QDRO that sets forth the amount due expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions that accrued during the marriage, not expressed as a lump sum. Stokes' counsel asked Denning to agree to convert the number to a percentage in the divorce decree, but he refused. The trial court then assigned an arbitrator to the case, who proposed a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4772550 Docket: 350739 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4772550 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t the lake house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court awarded Judy a horse trailer, a van equipped with features for the handicapped, a deferred compensation retirement account held by defendant (by QDRO), her county retirement plan, and any checking and savings accounts currently in her name. The court made her responsible for any credit card or unsecured debts that were solely in her name. The trial court awarded defendant farm and excavation equipment that was not presently located at the marital home or farm, a pickup truck, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"814bdd95-26e3-4983-9b83-dcdf879f5746","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4772550-4772550","title":"CourtListener opinion 4772550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"350739 Wayne Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: r to [Judy] as her sole and separate property, free of any claim of the Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to name her separate beneficiary. Plaintiff appealed by leave granted, and defendant cross-appeals. In its brief on appeal, plaintiff argued that the property division was not fair and equitable with respect to Judy's award of marital assets. Plaintiff contended that the trial court, in awarding the life insurance policy to Judy, gave her an asset that \"she could never benefit from while living.\" Plaintiff noted that the court's attempt to reduce the incongruity between the awards by giving Judy the insurance policy faile"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0178de67-4a73-4fc9-b91f-9a5a7a8197cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620","title":"CourtListener opinion 4794620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"351858 Clinton Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4794620 Docket: 351858 Clinton Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4794620 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0178de67-4a73-4fc9-b91f-9a5a7a8197cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620","title":"CourtListener opinion 4794620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"351858 Clinton Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0178de67-4a73-4fc9-b91f-9a5a7a8197cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620","title":"CourtListener opinion 4794620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"351858 Clinton Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oppe deliver the guns in the courthouse parking lot one hour before the scheduled hearing date on the motion. Additionally, it was claimed that plaintiff failed to comply with the COBRA insurance coverage provision and the qualified domestic- relations order (QDRO) requirements. Defendant requested compliance with the judgment provisions or reimbursement for the purchase price of the guns and costs and attorney fees. On July 18, 2017, the court heard oral argument regarding the motion to enforce the CSA. The parties resolved the COBRA benefit issue as well as the QDRO issue and submitted it to the court for signatu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0178de67-4a73-4fc9-b91f-9a5a7a8197cb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4794620-4794620","title":"CourtListener opinion 4794620","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"351858 Clinton Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: t concluded that the appropriate recourse was a show cause to pursue civil contempt involving Martinez and Dr. Hoppe to facilitate the execution of the transfer. Even though the CSA and the divorce judgment imposed obligations on the parties to facilitate the property division, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to award attorney fees when it became apparent that Dr. Hoppe had the firearms in his possession as a licensed dealer, and his attorney advised that there could be potential liability issues if the weapons were transferred to plaintiff to act as an intermediary with defendant. B. MARITAL HOME EXPENS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4880167 Extracted case name: MARN SUZANNE LARSEN-BALL v. WILLIAM GORDON BALL. Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 228. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4880167 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t rental value of the Old Kent Drive property for the time period when Husband solely occupied and profited from that property. 8. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the overpayment Wife received concerning the Waterview condominium via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not a gift. -6- 9. Whether the trial court erred by awarding to Husband credit for paying Poolside taxes when all of the taxes were proven to have been paid by Wife, paid jointly, or paid from the sale of the property. III. Standard of Review We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: m that he was due credit for two checks written to Wife totaling $590,000.00, the court found that the $570,000.00 check had been repaid by Wife because the Internal Revenue Service (\"IRS\") determined such payment to be an improper distribution from Husband's pension plan. The court therefore determined that Husband should not receive credit for this payment. The court did find, however, that Husband should receive credit for the $20,000.00 check. After dividing the proceeds from the East Pass property between the parties and considering the additional payment from Husband to Wife in the amount of $20,000.00, the court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: alue of the Old Kent Drive property for the time period when Husband solely occupied and profited from that property. 8. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the overpayment Wife received concerning the Waterview condominium via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not a gift. -6- 9. Whether the trial court erred by awarding to Husband credit for paying Poolside taxes when all of the taxes were proven to have been paid by Wife, paid jointly, or paid from the sale of the property. III. Standard of Review We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b24a6b58-cae0-4a24-9e25-e285c2c8470b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4880167-4880167","title":"CourtListener opinion 4880167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 S.W.3d 228","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: to a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and had entered into an agreed parenting plan with respect to their children, the court was tasked with equitably dividing the parties' marital estate valued at over $29,000,000.00. As part of that equitable distribution, the trial court awarded to Wife certificates of deposit valued at $5,783,258.00; Wife's then-current condominium residence valued at $950,000.00; and various vehicles and items of personalty. The court also ordered that other marital real properties be sold and that Wife would receive one-half of the proceeds from the sale of those properties, which had a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4908254 Extracted case name: GRAYSON v. ELMER WAYNE GRAYSON. Extracted reporter citation: 556 S.W.3d 219. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908254 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: \"make sense on its face\" and required clarification); Stout v. Stout, No. E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 6858279, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013) (\"This Court has previously recognized that a trial court may retain jurisdiction to establish or maintain a QDRO with regard to the division of retirement benefits incident to divorce\" and \"that the trial court has the authority, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01, to correct an error in a judgment sua sponte without limitation as to time.\") (internal citations omitted). B. Effect of Subsequent Orders Although Husband's postulate that the trial co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tirement.\" On June 3, 2011, Husband filed a motion to alter or amend the trial court's judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04. In his motion, Husband requested, inter alia, that the trial court \"clarify the terms of the distribution of retirement benefits, reconsider the application of alimony in futuro, and reconsider the allowance of alimony during the period of time that [Wife] shall be residing in the marital residence.\" In an order entered on July 21, 2011, the trial court determined that its division of the marital estate had been equitable and its award of alimony appropriate given Wife's needs and H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed on Retired Pay Accrued During Marriage The designated agent cannot honor awards based on the value of the member's retired pay that has \"accrued\" during the marriage because military retired pay does not accrue over time. Military retired pay is not a pension. Rather, it is a statutory entitlement computed at the time the -9- member retires and it is based on the member's rank and total years of service at the time of retirement, or member's high-3 and total years of service. [2] 290615. Awards of a Percentage of the Marital Portion The designated agent cannot honor an award of a percentage of the \"mari"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e248532-b27f-4ad6-b3a5-d03b871dcf71","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908254-4908254","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908254","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"556 S.W.3d 219","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d not disburse retirement funds to the wife due to deficient award language contained in the 2011 order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service explained in a letter addressed to the wife that the 2011 order had failed to provide a method to calculate the marital portion of the husband's retirement pay and that it had no way to calculate retirement pay that had \"accumulated during the term of the marriage.\" In order to effectuate the enforcement of its intended division of the husband's military retirement pay, the trial court attempted to correct its order by replacing \"accumulated during the term of the marriage\" with lan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e70129-b848-44f8-b1c1-1a63be4b09bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4908539 Extracted case name: ANNA SINCLAIR-JAMISON v. DEMETRISE PINKERTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908539 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e70129-b848-44f8-b1c1-1a63be4b09bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4e70129-b848-44f8-b1c1-1a63be4b09bb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908539-4908539","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: not award, refuse to change, or modify custody; nor does it hold or decline to hold a person in contempt of such an order. It simply vacates a prior order declining to hold a person in contempt, and it schedules further proceedings. Because the interlocutory domestic relations order that Sinclair-Jamison wishes to appeal does not come within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), she was required to file an interlocutory application to obtain appellate review at this juncture. Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996);"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4908755 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wagner. Extracted reporter citation: 711 P.2d 1384. Docket: 56. 5 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908755 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of Thomas James Bick and Kathleen Jo Johnson's dissolution of marriage case and associated child support case.1 Bick appeals from the District Court's December 31, 2018 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Decree of Dissolution (Decree) and two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). We affirm. ¶3 Bick and Johnson married in September 1987 and have two children together, H.B. and K.B. The parties resided in Billings, Montana since their marriage. In May 2016, Johnson told Bick that she had a job offer in Bozeman. She moved to Bozeman on June 14, 2016, with H.B. and K.B. Johnson signed a Petition for Dissolution of Marria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: illiams, 186 Mont. at 75, 606 P.2d at 517. The District Court did not err by not crediting Bick for the motel and campground expenses.5 ¶19 The fifth issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred in ordering Bick to pay the costs to divide his retirement accounts.6 \"The distribution of marital property in a dissolution proceeding is governed by § 40-4-202, MCA, under which a 5 Bick also argues the District Court ordered Bick to continue paying for Johnson's phone, phone service, and car insurance not only through trial delays but also once child support had started and after the court closed the window on child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e addressed in the variance infra.\" The District Court explained that the variance \"would assist [Bick] in paying for lodging and meals out to parent.\" ¶8 Johnson's attorney prepared the QDROs for Bick's Billings Clinic 403(b) Plan and his Billings Clinic Pension Plan. Bick was named the \"Participant\" in each QDRO and Johnson was named the \"Alternate Payee.\" The final provision in each QDRO required Bick to pay the one-time fee for review of the QDRO. The one-time fee for each QDRO was $300. The parties stipulated to the court entering each QDRO. On November 6, 2019, the District Court signed the QDROs. ¶9 Thre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"49eae9ef-d2ac-482e-9632-2b09202db9ad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4908755-4908755","title":"CourtListener opinion 4908755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"56. 5 The","extracted_reporter_citation":"711 P.2d 1384","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ld assist [Bick] in paying for lodging and meals out to parent.\" ¶8 Johnson's attorney prepared the QDROs for Bick's Billings Clinic 403(b) Plan and his Billings Clinic Pension Plan. Bick was named the \"Participant\" in each QDRO and Johnson was named the \"Alternate Payee.\" The final provision in each QDRO required Bick to pay the one-time fee for review of the QDRO. The one-time fee for each QDRO was $300. The parties stipulated to the court entering each QDRO. On November 6, 2019, the District Court signed the QDROs. ¶9 Three issues Bick raises on appeal ask this Court to overturn decisions the District Court made in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4911389 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 219 S.W.3d 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4911389 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arital estate, Edward was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Isabel's retirement benefits with Mason & Hanger Pantex and Isabel was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Edward's retirement benefits with ASARCO. Following the divorce, Edward's attorney sent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 to the trial court for signature and approval. Isabel and her counsel were unaware of the document. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a letter to Isabel, her attorney, and Edward stating that the QDRO had been accepted and \"[a]ccording"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Final Decree of Divorce was filed that same day. As part of the division of the marital estate, Edward was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Isabel's retirement benefits with Mason & Hanger Pantex and Isabel was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Edward's retirement benefits with ASARCO. Following the divorce, Edward's attorney sent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\")1 to the trial court for signature and approval. Isabel and her counsel were unaware of the document. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a le"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a letter to Isabel, her attorney, and Edward stating that the QDRO had been accepted and \"[a]ccordingly, the pension plan payments will be distributed in accordance with the [QDRO].\" While Mason & Hanger Pantex initially approved the QDRO, it later withdrew approval. Accordingly, Edward failed to receive his portion of Isabel's retirement benefits from Mason & Hanger Pantex paid prior to November 2019. Instead, Isabel received both the full share of her retirement as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9257829b-25fe-4da3-9b47-d7fdad11ca2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4911389-4911389","title":"CourtListener opinion 4911389","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"219 S.W.3d 97","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: The matter was tried to the bench, after which the 1 A qualified domestic relations order is a post-divorce enforcement order. Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). Its purpose is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353-54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 2 trial court entered its Judgment and Order Granting Relief, awarding judgment against Isabel in the amount of $13,325.91, together with interest thereon, costs,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4912212 Extracted reporter citation: 96 S.W.3d 227. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912212 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s and expenses at Redeemers Academy, including all payments required for summer school and / or daycare. c. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] that [Wife] is awarded the sum of $38,000, in favor of [Wife] against [Husband]'s 401 (k), secured by payment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). d. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] The IRS tax debt of the parties for tax [years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019], together with all penalties and interest due thereon, which [Husband] is ordered to timely pay. Husband is further ordered to indemnify Wife 1 Wife does not argue prejudice stemming from noncompliance by Husband with Rule 34.6(c)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: debt\" of the parties incurred during the marriage and to indemnify 3 In his reply brief, Husband argues the trial court was required to apply Family Code section 3.007(c), which states, \"The separate property interest of a spouse in a defined contribution retirement plan may be traced using the tracing and characterization principles that apply to a nonretirement asset.\" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 3.007(c). First, the use of \"may\" indicates that this is not the exclusive means of apportioning separate and community interests in a defined contribution account. See Code Construction Act, Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.016(1) (\"‘May' c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nrewaju (Wife). In four issues identified in his notice of appeal on a partial reporter's record, Husband argues the trial court reversibly erred by (1) ordering Husband to pay the school fees of the couple's children, (2) awarding Wife $38,000 from Husband's 401(k) account, (3) ordering Husband to pay tax debt incurred during the marriage, and (4) ordering Husband to pay child support. We affirm. I. ANALYSIS Husband filed this appeal on a partial reporter's record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c)(1) states, \"If the appellant requests a partial reporter's record, the appellant must include in the request a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cebd04f8-244c-4739-9d59-be8aed15d204","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912212-4912212","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"96 S.W.3d 227","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nses at Redeemers Academy, including all payments required for summer school and / or daycare. c. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] that [Wife] is awarded the sum of $38,000, in favor of [Wife] against [Husband]'s 401 (k), secured by payment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). d. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] The IRS tax debt of the parties for tax [years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019], together with all penalties and interest due thereon, which [Husband] is ordered to timely pay. Husband is further ordered to indemnify Wife 1 Wife does not argue prejudice stemming from noncompliance by Husband with Rule 34.6(c)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4912251 Extracted reporter citation: 555 S.W.3d 539. Docket: 2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912251 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ugh the trial court did not provide specific reasons for its division 55 In her brief, Dalia explained that she would have not agreed to the rollover because \"Samuel put all of his retirement accounts out of reach of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") division by putting the annuity entirely in his name.\" However, there was no evidence to support her conclusion. 14 of the community property estate, the trial court could have had a reasonable basis to award Dalia 100% of her FERS pension. Dalia proposed that Samuel keep his IRA. She testified that she would not have consented to his rollover had sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: o an engineer. She worked for NASA. Samuel testified that he and Dalia earned roughly the same annual income, between $110,000 and $120,000, and that both parties were in good health. Throughout their careers, both Dalia and Samuel accumulated substantial retirement benefits. Samuel testified about his Lockheed Martin pension account. He stated that if he retired on July 1, 2020, then Lockheed Martin would pay him a monthly pension payment of $257.22 for the rest of his life. In support of this monthly pension benefit, he presented a Lockheed Martin retirement statement showing the estimated values of his monthly pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s ———————————— NO. 01-20-00753-CV ——————————— SAMUEL RIOJAS, Appellant V. DALIA RIOJAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 310th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal concerns the division of pension assets between divorcing spouses. Samuel Riojas petitioned for divorce from Dalia Riojas. The trial court granted the divorce based on insupportability, divided the community property, and awarded each party 100% of their respective pensions. On appeal, Samuel1 argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Dalia a disproportionate share"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3d1c9c5-ff3d-47e2-b532-97500061b9b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912251-4912251","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912251","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 S.W.3d 539","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Boeing on the International Space Station. He had about 35 years' experience in the space industry. 1 We refer to the appellant and appellee by their first names because they share the same last name. 2 During their marriage, Samuel accumulated multiple 401(k) accounts because he worked for multiple companies, including Lockheed Martin. Dalia was also an engineer. She worked for NASA. Samuel testified that he and Dalia earned roughly the same annual income, between $110,000 and $120,000, and that both parties were in good health. Throughout their careers, both Dalia and Samuel accumulated substantial retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4912486 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Reinauer. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912486 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: may not modify a property division in a divorce decree, if it is ambiguous, the trial court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the division of property.\"). A trial court's clarification (by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or similar order) of a decree's ambiguous division of retirement benefits does not constitute a change to the decree's substantive division of property and does not run afoul of section 9.007. See Watret, 623 S.W.3d at 563; see also Wilde v. Murchie, 949 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Tex. 1997) (\"[I]f the decree is ambiguous, the court must interpret the judgment b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n the substance of his arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring opinion to be \"as brief as 4 amend the decree in violation of Family Code section 9.007; (2) the trial court exceeded its authority in rendering the MRPDO when it divided Paul's military retirement benefits in violation of Family Code section 9.101; and (3) Teresa's motion to enforce the decree's property division was time-barred by Family Code section 9.003. We will address each issue in turn. Family Code section 9.007 Family Code section 9.007 prohibits a trial court from amending, modifying, altering, or changing the actual, substantive division of p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a Jones, Appellee FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 231,816-C, THE HONORABLE GORDON G. ADAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul Jones and Teresa Jones1 were divorced in 2009. In 2020, the trial court rendered a Military Retirement Pension Division Order (MRPDO), finding the order \"necessary to effectuate the terms\" of the parties' divorce decree. Paul, appearing pro se, appeals the order. For the following reasons, we will affirm the MRPDO. BACKGROUND The final divorce decree provides, relevantly, that Paul is awarded All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vest"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7482f36-e2f5-4cd1-ac7d-aa7a0868f513","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4912486-4912486","title":"CourtListener opinion 4912486","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: use of community property); In re L.W., No. 12-19-00375-CV, 2020 WL 2078793, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining judicial admissions and their effect). 6 divisible under the law of this state or of the United States to an alternate payee or other lawful payee. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101(a). As best we can discern Paul's complaint regarding section 9.101, he seems to be arguing that the trial court erred in rendering the MRPDO without first rendering a QDRO. Alternatively, his argument appears to be that because the MRPDO was entered later than the decree, the trial court somehow lacked pow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9405ad84-e23a-4c77-af73-bb4f8a99caff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4969750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H045078. 3 B","extracted_reporter_citation":"5 Cal.App.5th 69","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4969750 Extracted case name: F.T. v. L.J. Extracted reporter citation: 5 Cal.App.5th 69. Docket: H045078. 3 B. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4969750 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9405ad84-e23a-4c77-af73-bb4f8a99caff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4969750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H045078. 3 B","extracted_reporter_citation":"5 Cal.App.5th 69","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9405ad84-e23a-4c77-af73-bb4f8a99caff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4969750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H045078. 3 B","extracted_reporter_citation":"5 Cal.App.5th 69","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fees order); (2) an order of October 29, 2018, denying Hage's request to set aside or vacate the attorney fees order; and (3) a minute order of November 6, 2018, purportedly granting Mhanna's request to enforce a prior court order for attorney fees through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO; hereafter, the QDRO minute order). Hage contends the trial court erred in making the six orders from which appeals have been taken. We conclude that the appeal as to the attorney fees order (April 6, 2018 order in case No. H046384) is untimely, and we will accordingly dismiss that appeal. As to the remaining five orders, we conclude there is no erro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9405ad84-e23a-4c77-af73-bb4f8a99caff","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4969750-4969750","title":"CourtListener opinion 4969750","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"H045078. 3 B","extracted_reporter_citation":"5 Cal.App.5th 69","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r); (2) an order of October 29, 2018, denying Hage's request to set aside or vacate the attorney fees order; and (3) a minute order of November 6, 2018, purportedly granting Mhanna's request to enforce a prior court order for attorney fees through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO; hereafter, the QDRO minute order). Hage contends the trial court erred in making the six orders from which appeals have been taken. We conclude that the appeal as to the attorney fees order (April 6, 2018 order in case No. H046384) is untimely, and we will accordingly dismiss that appeal. As to the remaining five orders, we conclude there is no erro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 4994886 Extracted case name: BETH E. ANKETELL v. MARTIN KULLDORFF. Extracted reporter citation: 99 A.3d 1206. Docket: of grants that he applies for and receives. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4994886 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , several of the assets awarded to the plaintiff in the dissolution judgment were not easily liquidated. Specifically, she was awarded her Worcester home, in which she reported $68,858 in equity, $175,000 in retirement accounts to be trans- ferred by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $71,035 in her retirement plan, and $2665 in equity in her motor vehicle.12 The only assets that the plaintiff was awarded that were capable of immediate liquida- tion were the lump sum property settlement of $52,500, $5000 in funds that were held by the caretaker of the Nicaragua property, and $6801 in bank accounts.13 As the plaintiff maintains, the $25,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: in 2015, the plaintiff worked twenty-nine hours per week, which was considered a full-time position, as a nurse at UMass Memorial Medi- cal Center in Worcester, Massachusetts. While working full time, the plaintiff elected not to participate in her employer's retirement plans. Following the birth of the parties' children, the plaintiff returned to work as a per diem nurse. Because her position is per diem, it is without fringe benefits, and her income depends on the number of hours she works. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the plaintiff's work hours varied considerably. The defendant has earned a PhD and w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of the assets awarded to the plaintiff in the dissolution judgment were not easily liquidated. Specifically, she was awarded her Worcester home, in which she reported $68,858 in equity, $175,000 in retirement accounts to be trans- ferred by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $71,035 in her retirement plan, and $2665 in equity in her motor vehicle.12 The only assets that the plaintiff was awarded that were capable of immediate liquida- tion were the lump sum property settlement of $52,500, $5000 in funds that were held by the caretaker of the Nicaragua property, and $6801 in bank accounts.13 As the plaintiff maintains, the $25,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4631909-eace-44f8-9fa0-805ba642e3da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-4994886-4994886","title":"CourtListener opinion 4994886","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of grants that he applies for and receives. The","extracted_reporter_citation":"99 A.3d 1206","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: .'' She further clarified, when asked whether she was ‘‘still looking for $60,000 even though [the defendant had] been funding the chil- dren's education,'' that her ‘‘desire to have the $60,000 did not factor on the CHET account[s] alone.'' In rendering its property division orders, the court considered the defendant's several unilateral financial transactions, which, although they increased the equity in the Ashford home and set aside funds for the three children's college education, were made without the input of the plaintiff and had the effect of reducing the liquid assets available for distribution. Having reviewed the ev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ae9909-a98b-4e92-b26b-f2e14e19af31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025","title":"CourtListener opinion 5078025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5078025 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5078025 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ae9909-a98b-4e92-b26b-f2e14e19af31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025","title":"CourtListener opinion 5078025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ae9909-a98b-4e92-b26b-f2e14e19af31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025","title":"CourtListener opinion 5078025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vatorship and visitation, ordered appellant to pay child support and attorney's fees, divided the parties' real estate in Indiana, awarded the wife an interest in an annuity recovered by appellant in a personal injury case in Indiana, and was accompanied by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing payment by Life Insurance Company of North America of one-half of appellant's annuity benefits to his wife. Appellant acknowledges the efficacy of the judgment as to divorce, conservatorship, and visitation, but challenges the remainder of the judgment for want of the court's jurisdiction over his person and property, claiming that neither pleadin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ae9909-a98b-4e92-b26b-f2e14e19af31","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5078025-5078025","title":"CourtListener opinion 5078025","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and visitation, ordered appellant to pay child support and attorney's fees, divided the parties' real estate in Indiana, awarded the wife an interest in an annuity recovered by appellant in a personal injury case in Indiana, and was accompanied by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing payment by Life Insurance Company of North America of one-half of appellant's annuity benefits to his wife. Appellant acknowledges the efficacy of the judgment as to divorce, conservatorship, and visitation, but challenges the remainder of the judgment for want of the court's jurisdiction over his person and property, claiming that neither pleadin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a58790c-ea9f-47a9-98ee-16b7433034e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734","title":"CourtListener opinion 5084734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5084734 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5084734 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a58790c-ea9f-47a9-98ee-16b7433034e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734","title":"CourtListener opinion 5084734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a58790c-ea9f-47a9-98ee-16b7433034e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5084734-5084734","title":"CourtListener opinion 5084734","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and granting appellee's Motion for Enforcement and Clarification. We affirm. The parties were divorced on May 11, 1988. The final decree awarded to appellee, as her separate property, one-half of the cash surrender value as of May 11, 1988, of two optional retirement plans in appellant's name. On February 10, 1992, appellee filed a Motion for Enforcement and Clarification. In her motion, appellee requested that the court render a \\clarifying\\\" order so that the portion of the divorce decree awarding her the retirement benefits would include appellee's last known address and appellant's mailing address and thus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34e0c1b-9b8f-4b4e-9b1f-5d842d9f1277","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720","title":"CourtListener opinion 5115720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5115720 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5115720 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34e0c1b-9b8f-4b4e-9b1f-5d842d9f1277","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720","title":"CourtListener opinion 5115720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34e0c1b-9b8f-4b4e-9b1f-5d842d9f1277","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720","title":"CourtListener opinion 5115720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ht to appeal sanctions order accrued when trial court rendered final judgment); cf. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2000) (declining to address whether sanctions order must be included in final judgment). 2 to render qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.006, 9.008, 9.101; see also Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106-08 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). The sanctions order in this case does not pertain to the enforcement or clarification of the property division or to a QDRO. Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order sanctions in Novemb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34e0c1b-9b8f-4b4e-9b1f-5d842d9f1277","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720","title":"CourtListener opinion 5115720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: al sanctions order accrued when trial court rendered final judgment); cf. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2000) (declining to address whether sanctions order must be included in final judgment). 2 to render qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.006, 9.008, 9.101; see also Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106-08 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). The sanctions order in this case does not pertain to the enforcement or clarification of the property division or to a QDRO. Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order sanctions in Novemb"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f34e0c1b-9b8f-4b4e-9b1f-5d842d9f1277","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5115720-5115720","title":"CourtListener opinion 5115720","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ned the order at issue in this appeal sanctioning Brenda Cay Hemenway's attorney Michael Rinehart. After its plenary power expires, a trial court in divorce proceedings has continuing, yet limited, postjudgment jurisdiction to enforce and clarify the decree's property division and 1 The trial court signed two sanctions orders in this case against Brenda Cay Hemenway's attorney Michael Rinehart. The trial court signed the first sanctions order before it rendered a final decree. Brenda Cay Hemenway implies that the divorce decree superseded the first sanctions order. John Richard Hemenway, appearing pro se on appeal, contends th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5116129 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NANCY and BRYAN MCKINNEY. NANCY MCKINNEY. Extracted reporter citation: 4 Cal.App.5th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5116129 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: for the survivorship benefit for Wife's disability retirement, Husband would get 50 percent at her death. Wife would get 50 percent of Husband's pension from the City of La Quinta 2006 to 2010 but would also have to contribute to the cost of a professional QDRO calculation. As for the Anaheim Hills House, there was nothing left to divide or give back. The trial court found, \"I know that there was information about separate property was put into it, and therefore [Wife] should get some of the down payment back and that [Husband] maybe put a small amount, but there is no tracing here that I can trace it back t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: had been living in the Fawnskin House, which went into foreclosure. Wife alleged that she paid the down payment on the Fawnskin House with her separate property and wanted to equalize her loss in the home in the amount of $70,000. Wife also listed an OCER retirement account, which she wanted awarded as her sole and separate property. Wife also requested that Husband pay a portion of her attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,000. Husband filed a trial brief on August 14, 2015. He listed the date of separation as May 1, 2012. When Husband signed the quitclaim deed to the Rembrandt House there was no equity and he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: When Husband signed the quitclaim deed to the Rembrandt House there was no equity and he believed that they were going to reconcile. Further, they jointly agreed to have the Fawnskin House go into foreclosure. He also sought his community share of her OCER pension. Husband also alleged that each party should bear their own attorney's fees and costs. 3 Wife filed an amended trial brief on October 6, 2015. She again contended that the date of separation was March 1, 2010. Wife sought $5,000 each month in spousal support; to be awarded the Rembrandt House as her separate property; a payout from Husband's pension"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34314fca-98e2-444e-8740-7280ee17267a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5116129-5116129","title":"CourtListener opinion 5116129","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"4 Cal.App.5th 574","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: iamond ring at her behest—to save the marriage—on which he still owed money. He also wanted her to share in paying back the loan from his parents. 10 As for Wife's disability retirement, he was not asking for any of it during her lifetime but wanted the community property in the survivorship pension. He wanted the $115,000 back that was from his retirement account because of her breach of fiduciary duty in taking it and wanted Wife to pay all of his attorney's fees. He also sought to have the transfer of the Rembrandt House to be rescinded because of duress. The house should be sold so he could get his portion. Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5117095 Extracted case name: GILREATH v. CONNER. REESE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5117095 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and stated: (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, within ninety (90) days of [Gilreath's] instatement of his pension. Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of [Gilreath] and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned pension plan. . . . (2) [Conner's] interest in [Gilreath's] pension s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lowing. As part of the final judgment and decree governing Gilreath and Conner's divorce, the parties entered into an agreement outlining, inter alia, the division of marital property (the \"Agreement\"). Section 11 of the Agreement addressed the division of retirement benefits and stated: (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, with"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: T. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES. September 21, 2021 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A21A0816. GILREATH v. CONNER. REESE, Judge. Edward Gilreath and Sherrie Conner divorced in 2014. Gilreath began receiving pension payments as of January 1, 2019, following his retirement, but he did not provide any portion of these payments to Conner. Conner subsequently filed a motion for clarification of the final judgment and decree, and a motion for contempt. The trial court denied Conner's contempt motion, but found that Gilreath owed Conner 27.4 percent of his monthly pensio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c640061-436c-4b88-a171-b34d7845fd8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5117095-5117095","title":"CourtListener opinion 5117095","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: : (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, within ninety (90) days of [Gilreath's] instatement of his pension. Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of [Gilreath] and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned pension plan. . . . (2) [Conner's] interest in [Gilreath's] pension s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df366f5a-2436-4681-8e58-f4438101a05b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999","title":"CourtListener opinion 5119999","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5119999 Extracted case name: MINER v. MINER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5119999 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df366f5a-2436-4681-8e58-f4438101a05b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999","title":"CourtListener opinion 5119999","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df366f5a-2436-4681-8e58-f4438101a05b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999","title":"CourtListener opinion 5119999","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sion Clause of the Arizona Constitution. I. Koelsch Payments ¶8 Our Supreme Court defines a matured pension as an \"unconditional right to immediate payment.\" See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 178 n.2 (cleaned up). When an employee spouse continues working after his retirement benefits mature, then he is \"liable to reimburse the non- employee spouse for the property interest in the monthly pension benefit.\" Id. at 185. A non-employee spouse may waive her right to seek Koelsch payments if that spouse agrees to receive her share of benefits when distributed to the employee spouse. See Quijada, 246 Ariz. at 221, ¶ 10. ¶9 The Order's langua"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df366f5a-2436-4681-8e58-f4438101a05b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999","title":"CourtListener opinion 5119999","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1998. During the marriage, Husband worked for the Phoenix Police Department. As a police officer, Husband participates in the Arizona State Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (\"Pension\"). Husband still worked for, but could not retire from, Phoenix Police Department when the parties divorced in November 2017. ¶3 In the consent decree, the parties agreed to equally divide the community's interest in the Pension. The decree required the parties to hire an attorney to \"prepare any orders and documentation necessary to effectuate a division"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"df366f5a-2436-4681-8e58-f4438101a05b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5119999-5119999","title":"CourtListener opinion 5119999","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eed to equally divide the community's interest in the Pension. The decree required the parties to hire an attorney to \"prepare any orders and documentation necessary to effectuate a division of the Pension.\" In September 2019, the parties entered a stipulated domestic relations order (\"Order\") that divided the Pension. The Order provided: \"[Wife] is awarded as her sole and separate property a pro-rata share of [the Pension] payable directly . . . at the same time and in the same manner payments are made to [Husband].\" ¶4 In June 2020, Wife petitioned to enforce the decree's provision concerning the Pension. Wife alleged \"Husband will r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5122404 Extracted reporter citation: 791 N.E.2d 434. Docket: 12-21-01. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5122404 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: w -11- Case No. 12-21-01 of the record shows that the parties stipulated that they would offset the amount owed by Patrick for equity in the marital home for an equal amount in Melissa's 401K plan and all of the retirement accounts would be subject to a QDRO. However, the record does not indicate that the parties stipulated that they would divide the assets first and then offset the amount. A trial court has broad discretion in how marital assets are divided and its determination will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275, 2003-Ohio-3624, 791"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: et to her 401K plan was completed. A review -11- Case No. 12-21-01 of the record shows that the parties stipulated that they would offset the amount owed by Patrick for equity in the marital home for an equal amount in Melissa's 401K plan and all of the retirement accounts would be subject to a QDRO. However, the record does not indicate that the parties stipulated that they would divide the assets first and then offset the amount. A trial court has broad discretion in how marital assets are divided and its determination will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rst assignment of error that the trial court erred in its property division by 1) mistakenly listing the FME/Community Choice debt as $117 instead of $1,170 and 2) erring in how it offset the amount owed by Patrick to Melissa from the division of Melissa's 401K plan. As to the FME/Community Choice debt, a review of the record shows that as of September 2020, Melissa had paid $990. Plaintiff's Ex. LLL. The trial court indicated that it was using the numbers set forth in Plaintiff's Ex. LLL to determine the values, but used the number $117 in its calculations. This appears to be a typographical error that affec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6d034932-c543-4367-b46f-0c726ea406e7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5122404-5122404","title":"CourtListener opinion 5122404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"12-21-01","extracted_reporter_citation":"791 N.E.2d 434","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Ex. 3. This affects the equitable division of assets. Thus, the trial court upon remand needs to correct this error. Patrick's third assignment of error is sustained. {¶15} Melissa claims in her first assignment of error that the trial court erred in its property division by 1) mistakenly listing the FME/Community Choice debt as $117 instead of $1,170 and 2) erring in how it offset the amount owed by Patrick to Melissa from the division of Melissa's 401K plan. As to the FME/Community Choice debt, a review of the record shows that as of September 2020, Melissa had paid $990. Plaintiff's Ex. LLL. The trial court indicated"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0ed5b83-fc5f-4b38-9aed-9c2b2fda6904","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604","title":"CourtListener opinion 5125604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5125604 Extracted case name: CYNTHIA LAWRENCE v. THOMAS LAWRENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5125604 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0ed5b83-fc5f-4b38-9aed-9c2b2fda6904","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604","title":"CourtListener opinion 5125604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0ed5b83-fc5f-4b38-9aed-9c2b2fda6904","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604","title":"CourtListener opinion 5125604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y in this case, Mr. Lawrence will designate a $70,000.00 figure as dissipat ion in this case, one- otChalf of which or ;37.505).Q0. Mr. Lawrence will transfer ette.zemainder of his 401(k) account. Counsel for Wife shall to Mrs. Lawrence the prepare the QDRO jte vit.) Sa., Wrfe's expense. Additionally, Mr. Lawrence will pay P Lawrence for the loan and withdrawal he took out against the o Mrs. 1.1'8.)588 co Lt- ' 401(k)to fund this litigation in the total arnount of $.2867{4/4040. Husband will also pay to Wife one- half(%)of the value of the gold and silver at National Security & Trust that existed at"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e0ed5b83-fc5f-4b38-9aed-9c2b2fda6904","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5125604-5125604","title":"CourtListener opinion 5125604","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Prior to the mediation, Husband made a written settlement offer in a letter dated July 3, 2018. On July 9, 2018, Husband sent Wife's counsel another letter advising of an error in the July 3, 2018 letter regarding the amount of Husband's withdrawals from his 401(k). This letter advised and provided proof that the actual amount of the withdrawals was $298,588.64, not the $250,000.00 referenced in the July 3, 2018 letter. The mediator used this letter as a basis to arrive at a \"Mediated Agreement,\" making notations on the letter to reflect the parties' evolving agreements, see infra. The parties signed off on the letter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2121abf2-771f-4426-a8f1-cffdf94ae167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331","title":"CourtListener opinion 5126331","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5126331 Extracted case name: KELLY v. KELLY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5126331 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2121abf2-771f-4426-a8f1-cffdf94ae167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331","title":"CourtListener opinion 5126331","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2121abf2-771f-4426-a8f1-cffdf94ae167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331","title":"CourtListener opinion 5126331","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: time.\" ARFLP 72(b)(1)(B). Beyond that, however, \"the master may determine any issues under A.R.S. Title 25 that could be presented to the assigned judge.\" Id. ¶25 The superior court did not err. It ordered the special master to \"equitably divide the parties' retirement accounts pursuant to the terms of the Decree and all subsequent, relevant orders.\" The family court rules contemplate the appointment of special masters, and the court complied with those rules. Indeed, Father stipulated to the special master's appointment to \"determine the community interest\" in several retirement assets, including the IRA discussed in the next se"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2121abf2-771f-4426-a8f1-cffdf94ae167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331","title":"CourtListener opinion 5126331","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rom his IRA to Mother as recommended by the special master. As a threshold matter, however, Mother contends we lack jurisdiction to hear that issue because Father's pro per notice of appeal listed only the March 2020 dissolution decree and not the August 2020 Domestic Relations Order (\"DRO\"), which apportioned this sum. We disagree. 8 KELLY v. KELLY Opinion of the Court ¶27 Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 8(c)(3) requires an appellant to file a notice of appeal \"[d]esignat[ing] the judgment or portion of the judgment from which the party is appealing.\" Arizona courts disfavor technical challenges to a notice of appeal, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2121abf2-771f-4426-a8f1-cffdf94ae167","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5126331-5126331","title":"CourtListener opinion 5126331","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: prejudiced an opposing party.\" See Hill v. City of Phoenix, 193 Ariz. 570, 572-73, ¶ 10 (1999). ¶28 We have jurisdiction here. First, the dissolution decree and DRO were components of the same judgment or determination—to discern and divide the separate and community property. See Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 577, ¶ 19 (App. 2015) (concluding notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction when the non-specified orders \"were all part of the same determination on the same claims\"). The dissolution decree (1) ordered \"the parties shall arrange to have any necessary [DRO] prepared by\" the special master, (2) e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5128056 Extracted reporter citation: 217 A.3d 289. Docket: 477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5128056 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y objections filed by the Corrections Respondents and dismiss Rodeheaver's Amended Petition. I. BACKGROUND In his Amended Petition, Rodeheaver avers that DOC illegally seized $2,500.28 that was paid to Rodeheaver from a retirement annuity plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 as a result of his mother's death.2, 3 (Amended Petition ¶¶ 1-2, 6.) According to Rodeheaver, he first filed a grievance with DOC regarding these funds, which DOC denied, citing DOC's internal policy, DC-ADM 005.4 (Amended Petition ¶ 3.) He avers that the funds, which he characterizes as retirement funds, were exempt from attachment or execution on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: an order entered by a court in a criminal proceeding\" or similar language to that effect. Accordingly, in consideration of this clear statutory language, we cannot agree that Act 84 imparts unfettered authority upon DOC to seize funds from a judgment debtor's retirement account or annuity plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in consideration of Corrections Respondents' second argument regarding the character of the funds, we agree with DOC that the funds in question are not protected by Section 8124 of the Judicial Code. 6 Section 8124(b)(1)(vii) specifically provides that only the pension or annuity plan granted or paid to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r a plan.\" Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)); see also Section 1056(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (relating to assignment of pension plan benefits). \"The QDRO provisions address the rights of divorced and separated spouses, and their dependent children, which are the traditional concern of domestic relations law.\" Jago, 217 A.3d at 294 (quoting Boggs, 520 U.S. at 849). 2 Rodeheaver avers that the Family Court of Mineral County, West Virginia, issued the QDRO on October 16, 2017, and it"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5eb8f221-8c75-43f1-9da2-fab65e03c751","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128056-5128056","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128056","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa","extracted_reporter_citation":"217 A.3d 289","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)); see also Section 1056(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (relating to assignment of pension plan benefits). \"The QDRO provisions address the rights of divorced and separated spouses, and their dependent children, which are the traditional concern of domestic relations law.\" Jago, 217 A.3d at 294 (quoting Boggs, 520 U.S. at 849). 2 Rodeheaver avers that the Family Court of Mineral County, W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5be32b86-0bbc-4ee6-8f11-588b1957faad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128799","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"615 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5128799 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 615 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5128799 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5be32b86-0bbc-4ee6-8f11-588b1957faad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128799","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"615 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5be32b86-0bbc-4ee6-8f11-588b1957faad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5128799-5128799","title":"CourtListener opinion 5128799","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"615 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ikhail G. Kurmanov. We affirm. The trial court opinion provides the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: The instant appeal arises from an order generated during a December 14, 2020 contempt hearing for violation of a child support/domestic relations order. At that hearing, Appellee was ordered to pay $150.00 per month, every month, until the purge amount was paid in full. Appellant filed a Motion of Contempt on February 12, 2021, and subsequently filed an Amended Motion of Contempt on March 20, 2021. An Order dated April 1, 2021 directed that the Motion of Contempt be listed by the Domestic Relations Office"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5129655 Extracted reporter citation: 454 P.3d 1092. Docket: 48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5129655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: arding Terry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: erry\") and Xiomara Robirds. Terry appeals from the district court's decision on intermediate appeal, which affirmed the decision of the magistrate court to (1) set aside a stipulated judgment regarding property distribution and (2) characterize all of Terry's retirement accounts as community property, to be divided equally as of the date of divorce. On appeal, Terry argues that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's rulings and in failing to award Terry attorney fees on intermediate appeal. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the decision of the district court. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e parties' property and ascertaining the composition of the marital estate, especially as it concerned the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts. Terry asserts that because he testified that the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts are employer sponsored 401(k) accounts funded by contributions of his earnings from employment, which ended prior to the marriage, the accounts, including any passive income generated by those accounts, are necessarily his separate property with no further proof required. We disagree. Notwithstanding Terry and Xiomara's divergent legal positions, the law for making such determinations"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b1f54e5-e744-4991-8e97-18b5d3b0a6d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129655-5129655","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129655","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS","extracted_reporter_citation":"454 P.3d 1092","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5129937 Extracted case name: DEBORAH P. LINN v. MARK A. LINN. Extracted reporter citation: 350 S.W.3d 99. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5129937 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: that Husband had the ability to comply with the divorce decree and had sufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: .00 when the parties divorced, until July 2015, when it increased to $258,000.00. Beginning in approximately 2018, his income decreased to around $70,000.00 annually. He also received two government loans in 2020. Husband owns no real property, but has a 401k retirement account, which, as of November 2020, was valued at approximately $477,121.00, but could not be accessed without penalty until June 14, 2021. Husband's assets include an unencumbered thirty-foot boat; a few thousand dollars in his checking and savings accounts; and a Hyundai, which is financed as a leased vehicle. His monthly personal expenses are approximately $6,0"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a third person, a rebuttable presumption is r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f3b7f2b-a419-4720-917b-6ce25c772641","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5129937-5129937","title":"CourtListener opinion 5129937","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"350 S.W.3d 99","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and had the ability to comply with the divorce decree and had sufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5132400 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5132400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the \"timing or amount of payments . . . exceed the authority granted under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4).\" Turner, 47 Va. App. at 80 (quoting Hastie v. -5- Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 781 (1999)); see Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 257 (1997) (reversing an amended qualified domestic relations order that divided a retirement account based on its present increased value, rather than using an earlier valuation date expressed in the equitable distribution order, because the court lacked \"authority to substantively modify its order simply to redress [the] changed circumstance\" of the account's increased value). Here, the 2004 equitable distribution or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nson and Greene, on briefs), for appellant. Joseph E. Blackburn, Jr. (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Michael R. Crawley, Sr. (\"husband\") contests the circuit court's jurisdiction to recalculate the marital share of retirement benefits owed to his former wife, Patricia Paige Crawley (\"wife\"). For the following reasons, we hold that the court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) and affirm. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married in 1987 and divorced in April 1999. While married, both parties were employed and accrued retirement benefits. Wife had a milita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) and affirm. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married in 1987 and divorced in April 1999. While married, both parties were employed and accrued retirement benefits. Wife had a military pension, and husband had a pension with the Richmond Retirement System (\"RRS\") through his employment with the city's fire department. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The 1999 divorce decree reserved the issue of equitable distribution. In January 2004, the court entered an agreed order for equitable distribut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78036111-60c8-4d3c-867b-33f1cb903491","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5132400-5132400","title":"CourtListener opinion 5132400","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years that the spouse was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: g or amount of payments . . . exceed the authority granted under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4).\" Turner, 47 Va. App. at 80 (quoting Hastie v. -5- Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 781 (1999)); see Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 257 (1997) (reversing an amended qualified domestic relations order that divided a retirement account based on its present increased value, rather than using an earlier valuation date expressed in the equitable distribution order, because the court lacked \"authority to substantively modify its order simply to redress [the] changed circumstance\" of the account's increased value). Here, the 2004 equitable distribution or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5133423 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5133423 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r payment because Richard had been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income. The court also deferred resolving the vacation and sick pay issue. Also in June 2015, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \\assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: GORE, No. 73977 Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. FILE ELENI KILGORE, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. OCT 0 3 2019 BY ct Appeal and cross-appeal from orders resolving a motion to allocate omitted assets and modifying a divorce decree as it relates to PERS retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Betsy Allen and Betsy Allen, Las Vegas, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent. Page Law Office and Fred Page, Las Vegas, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant. BEFORE PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ. OPINION By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Eleni Kilgore's divorce. Specifically, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it concluded that Eleni was entitled to her community SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ICI -41-0 1 property share of Richard's pension benefits even though Richard had not yet retired, reduced this amount to judgment, and ordered Richard to pay Eleni a monthly amount it deemed fair. We also consider whether the district court erred when it concluded that Richard's vacation and sick pay were omitted from the divorce decree and thereafter divided them equally between Richard and Eleni."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dbb2278-74c8-4f7c-962e-197af8f13e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133423-5133423","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133423","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 15, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \\assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3368a0c8-937f-4618-9d2f-64d6b97e002c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5133718 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5133718 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3368a0c8-937f-4618-9d2f-64d6b97e002c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3368a0c8-937f-4618-9d2f-64d6b97e002c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5133718-5133718","title":"CourtListener opinion 5133718","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urcios to the low term of two years for corporal injury to a child and a consecutive term of one year for the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. The court also imposed concurrent terms of 364 days in jail each for the battery of Doe 1 and the violation of a domestic relations order and stayed terms for the remaining convictions under section 654. Thus, the total unstayed term was three years in prison. II. DISCUSSION As we have said, Turcios's only contention on appeal is that the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury, a claim we review de novo. (People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568.) Turcios mainta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5137000 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Mansell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: for six months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5137000 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocket for six months \"for entry of the appropriate Approved Domestic Relations Orders for the purpose of the division of retirement benefits, and any amendments thereto that may be necessary to effectuate the parties' agreement.\" The pension division order, a qualified domestic relations order, was, in fact, entered the same day as the final decree. Husband suggests that the orders remained interlocutory because the circuit court reserved the right to extend support after ten years, but this does not render the orders non-final. -6- \"bi-weekly,\" rather than \"per month.\" Dorn, 222 Va. at 290-91. The Supreme Court found the record supported an \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ity to trial courts to have continuing authority and jurisdiction in divorce matters for the limited purpose of making additional orders \"necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section,\" including orders to affect or divide any retirement plans. Code § 20-109(B) grants trial courts authority to modify awards of spousal support upon a material change in circumstances. -5- Rule 1:1\" in order to retain jurisdiction. Ruffin, 263 Va. at 563.4 By the time husband filed a motion for modification, over a year after the final decree and pension order were entered, the circuit court had lost jurisdicti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Kyle J. Burcham (Heather Larson Pedersen; Pedersen Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellee. Michael Yourko (\"husband\") appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his motion for modification of a final decree and equitable distribution order, and a military pension division order. Husband assigns error to the circuit court's refusal to modify these orders. The parties to this divorce negotiated an agreement regarding the division of husband's military retirement pay. A year later husband challenged the orders complaining that aspects of the agreement to divide his military retirement pay were violative of fede"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90aaf989-6474-460e-884f-1e92759a9184","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137000-5137000","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137000","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for six months","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: es agreed to a monthly support level, but in drafting the agreement mistakenly wrote that the payments would be made 4 Here, the final decree did allow for the case to be retained on the court's docket for six months \"for entry of the appropriate Approved Domestic Relations Orders for the purpose of the division of retirement benefits, and any amendments thereto that may be necessary to effectuate the parties' agreement.\" The pension division order, a qualified domestic relations order, was, in fact, entered the same day as the final decree. Husband suggests that the orders remained interlocutory because the circuit court reserved t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5137352 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 745 P.2d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5137352 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d for various ailments that arose after the divorce. Johnson's final retirement benefit was reduced by amounts Johnson received under that award. ¶5 Zoric next attempted to secure her portion of Johnson's military retirement in October 2008, when she filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 In keeping with the 1984 divorce decree, the trial court awarded Zoric a share of Johnson's 1. Contrary to the implication of Johnson's brief, the divorce court expressly found that \"neither party has superior possession by way of morality over the other.\" 2. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98‐397, 98 Stat. 1426 (1986) (codified as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rable David M. Connors Attorneys: Raymond B. Rounds, Ogden, for Appellant Bryce M. Froerer, Ogden, for Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐ Before Judges Voros, Davis, and Christiansen. VOROS, Associate Presiding Judge: ¶1 This appeal involves the allocation of the military retirement benefit of an employee spouse pursuant to a 1984 divorce decree. Mark Lawrence Johnson, a retiree from the United States Air Force, seeks review of the amount of his military retirement the trial court awarded to his ex‐wife, Elizabeth Ann Zoric. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND ¶2 Johnson and Zoric were married f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: veyed those statements to Johnson and, as a result, he \"made substantial changes in his life financially.\" ¶4 In 1999, Johnson retired and began receiving military retirement benefits. At that time he was a Master Sergeant at a pay grade of E‐7. His military pension was thus calculated based on a pay grade of E‐7. In September 2000, Johnson received a veteran's disability award for various ailments that arose after the divorce. Johnson's final retirement benefit was reduced by amounts Johnson received under that award. ¶5 Zoric next attempted to secure her portion of Johnson's military retirement in October 2008, when"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c9141be-510a-423a-97f9-ab8e290d5994","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5137352-5137352","title":"CourtListener opinion 5137352","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"745 P.2d 830","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: 1987). A QDRO instructs \"the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when. Although a QDRO cannot order the payment of a benefit which is not allowed under a particular plan, it can order partial payment to an alternate payee (an ex‐spouse, for example).\" Id. 20100705‐CA 2 actual monthly military retirement benefit. The court calculated her share based on Johnson's actual retirement benefit, which was based on Johnson's salary at the time of retirement, less the disability reduction. The trial court also calculated Zoric's share based on Johnson's gross monthly retirement bene"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138161 Extracted reporter citation: 270 P.3d 556. Docket: 20140179-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138161 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ays of [Husband] receiving any retirement distribution. [Husband] shall not pay [Wife] directly once the plan administrator implements the division of the USPHS Pension. A. Wife's Pensions ¶6 Following the entry of the divorce decree, Husband proposed a qualified domestic relations order that would require the plan administrator to pay Husband one half of each of Wife's gross pension payments. Wife objected, contending that the decree defined the amount to be paid to Husband as \"gross retirement pay less authorized deductions,\" such as taxes and disability, and that only her net payments should be subject to division. Husband responded that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: es eligible to receive a pension. ¶4 With respect to Husband's pension through USPHS, the stipulated decree provided, All of [Husband's] years of employment with USPHS accrued during the marriage, and [Husband] is currently receiving the payments of the retirement benefits from the USPHS Pension. The \"disposable retired pay\" amount of the USPHS pension benefit shall be divided equally pursuant 20140179-CA 2 2016 UT App 146 Thayer v. Thayer to Johnson v. Johnson, 2012 UT App 22[,] and 10 U.S.C.A. § 104(a)(4)(C).[ 2] \"Disposable retired pay\" is defined as gross retirement pay less authorized deductions, including amou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . Admin. 11-201(6). Thayer v. Thayer BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Wife married in April 1978. The parties' stipulated decree of divorce was entered in September 2013. During the marriage, both parties earned retirement pay through their employers. Wife has a pension plan through her employment as a teacher in Alaska and should become eligible in the future to receive a pension from her employment as a teacher in Utah. Husband has a pension plan through his employment with the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS). I. The Divorce Decree ¶3 At the time of the divorce, Wife was \"not yet receivi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7ae2a2be-bed9-4da6-b1ef-d644b595e28e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138161-5138161","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138161","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140179-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"270 P.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: usband] receiving any retirement distribution. [Husband] shall not pay [Wife] directly once the plan administrator implements the division of the USPHS Pension. A. Wife's Pensions ¶6 Following the entry of the divorce decree, Husband proposed a qualified domestic relations order that would require the plan administrator to pay Husband one half of each of Wife's gross pension payments. Wife objected, contending that the decree defined the amount to be paid to Husband as \"gross retirement pay less authorized deductions,\" such as taxes and disability, and that only her net payments should be subject to division. Husband responded that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138195 Extracted reporter citation: 656 P.2d 431. Docket: 20140196-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138195 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: inal decree of divorce, later signed on October 18, 2013. Following the court's order, contentions between Husband and Wife over issues unrelated to this appeal continued for months. ¶5 On January 28, 2014, Husband's counsel sent Wife's counsel a copy of the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO3), which he proposed to file with the district court to implement division of the retirement account. In an email accompanying the document, Husband's counsel explained that ‚the retirement will be divided according to the Woodward formula‛ and, for the first time, he provided a mathematical calculation showing ‚how *he+ arrived at the amount set"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: strict court in a divorce proceeding. Troy M. Granger (Husband) cross-appeals, challenging the court's denial of his request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand to the district court for further fact finding regarding the distribution of Husband's 401(k) retirement account and for entry of 1. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued April 7, 2016, Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 67. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by Cindy D. Granger, paragraph 27 was added with the subsequent paragraph re-numbered as paragraph 28. Granger v. Granger appropriate findings to support its decision on the issue of attorne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , 872 P.2d 1057, 1058 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (‚Generally, we do not consider mooted questions on appeal. Whether to consider a mooted controversy is a matter of judicial policy and not law.‛ (citation omitted)). ANALYSIS ¶12 Generally, there are two types of pension plans: a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution retirement plan. The retirement account at issue is not a defined benefit plan like the pension at issue in Woodward. Instead it is a defined contribution plan, specifically a 401(k) retirement account that Husband had paid into before and during the marriage. In Oliekan v. Oliekan, 2006 UT Ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f2818aa-4498-4066-b98b-ddce88b54911","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138195-5138195","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20140196-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"656 P.2d 431","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the district court in a divorce proceeding. Troy M. Granger (Husband) cross-appeals, challenging the court's denial of his request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand to the district court for further fact finding regarding the distribution of Husband's 401(k) retirement account and for entry of 1. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued April 7, 2016, Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 67. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by Cindy D. Granger, paragraph 27 was added with the subsequent paragraph re-numbered as paragraph 28. Granger v. Granger appropriate findings to support its decision on t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138637 Extracted case name: A.S. v. R.S. Extracted reporter citation: 392 P.3d 985. Docket: 20170606-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138637 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ur practice in cases where [multiple] parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name[s] with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality.\" Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40, ¶ 2 n.1, 392 P.3d 985. Potts v. Potts relations orders (QDRO) 2 to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. Kathleen filed the QDRO related to her retirement account in 1995, but Duane waited until 2000 to file his corresponding QDRO. As it turned out, just before Duane filed, the Utah Retirement Systems' rules regarding retirement benefits changed, providing Duane with the advantage of new di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: EN, Judge: ¶1 This case involves not the benefit of the doubt, but some doubt as to the benefit. After separating in 1992, the court entered a decree of divorce based in part on Duane 1 and Kathleen's stipulation. The decree awarded a portion of each party's retirement benefits to the other party. The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining qualified domestic 1. \"As is our practice in cases where [multiple] parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name[s] with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality.\" Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40, ¶ 2 n.1, 392 P.3d 985. Potts v. Potts relatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: te of Utah. Pursuant to the decree of divorce, each party was awarded a Woodward share of the other's retirement benefits: 50% of the retirement benefits that accrued during their marriage. See Woodward v. Woodward, 656 P.2d 431, 433 (Utah 1982) (holding that pension benefits accrued during the marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution). The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining QDROs to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. ¶3 In March 1995, Kathleen filed her proposed qualified domestic relations order (1995 QDRO) for the court's signature and then subm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7d62b49-4593-4f4c-b41f-45e19ba60980","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138637-5138637","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138637","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170606-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution). The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining QDROs to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. ¶3 In March 1995, Kathleen filed her proposed qualified domestic relations order (1995 QDRO) for the court's signature and then submitted the signed order to Utah Retirement Systems (URS). The 1995 QDRO ordered URS to divide Kathleen's share of Duane's retirement based upon the rules in existence at that 2. A qualified domestic relations order instructs \"the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138864 Extracted reporter citation: 294 P.3d 600. Docket: 20170956-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138864 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: \"appropriate Qualified Domestic 20170956-CA 24 2019 UT App 147 McQuarrie v. McQuarrie Relations Order[6] securing [Janette's] interest in said retirement plan,\" but Melvin was \"ordered to try and have the account divided equally without the necessity of a QDRO.\" In its recommendation, the court commissioner found that \"the payment of half of [Melvin's] 401(k) account ha[d] been satisfied . . . by [his] payment to [Janette] in the amount of $8,885.52.\" The district court approved the commissioner's determination. ¶56 Janette challenges the court's decision. She starts by claiming Melvin's \"401(k) had a balance of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: will be at an end.\" The Decree states that \"[Melvin's] payment of the first deed of trust, the real property taxes, and the homeowner's insurance constitutes a part of the property settlement.\" Janette also received an award of \"one-half of [Melvin's] 401(k) retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage.\" ¶6 As \"part of the property settlement agreed upon by the parties,\" the Decree ordered Melvin to permanently \"employ [Janette] with one of his companies\" and, as a benefit of that employment, the company was required to \"pay for [Janette's] health insurance premiums for as long as [she] require[d] medical insurance.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e items will be at an end.\" The Decree states that \"[Melvin's] payment of the first deed of trust, the real property taxes, and the homeowner's insurance constitutes a part of the property settlement.\" Janette also received an award of \"one-half of [Melvin's] 401(k) retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage.\" ¶6 As \"part of the property settlement agreed upon by the parties,\" the Decree ordered Melvin to permanently \"employ [Janette] with one of his companies\" and, as a benefit of that employment, the company was required to \"pay for [Janette's] health insurance premiums for as long as [she] require[d]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27b6232b-ce63-47ad-bc2b-fb599dd6ef0d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138864-5138864","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138864","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170956-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"294 P.3d 600","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: was entered. Her brief cites an account summary for the period of October 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, that lists a \"total value\" of $37,612.62 on October 1, 2008, and a \"total value\" of $28,904.27 on December 31, 2008. But because the 6. \"A qualified domestic relations order [(QDRO)] instructs the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when.\" Potts v. Potts, 2018 UT App 169, ¶ 1 n.2, 436 P.3d 263 (quotation simplified). 20170956-CA 25 2019 UT App 147 McQuarrie v. McQuarrie Decree was not entered until November 28, 2008, the account summary does not reveal the account's balan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138903 Extracted case name: LLC v. BBRD. Extracted reporter citation: 907 P.2d 264. Docket: 20170541-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138903 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o disrespect by the apparent informality. 20170541-CA 2 2019 UT App 106 Janson v. Janson 15. [Jeffrey's] Alliant Technical Systems Pension plan which will be divided pursuant to the Woodward formula. 16. The parties will share equally the cost of any qualified domestic relation order. ¶5 On January 12, 2017, Deidre moved to set aside the Stipulation on the ground that there was not a meeting of the minds regarding various provisions in the agreement. She asserted that she \"did not receive [Jeffrey's] financial disclosures until the morning of mediation and was not able to consult with her attorney prior to mediation.\" She asserted that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pay Jeffrey $13,178 from her share of the parties' bank accounts to equalize the vehicle equity disparity. ¶4 The parties had a number of retirement funds and accounts. Regarding the retirement, the parties agreed as follows: 12. [Deidre] has the following retirement accounts: Utah Retirement in the amount of approximately $72,440; General Electric in the approximate amount of $100,435; Roth IRA in the approximate amount of $18,252; FDIC in the approximate amount of $16,719 and $17,431; and Utah Pension in the amount of $15,281. 13. [Jeffrey] has the following retirement accounts: Fidelity in the approximate amount of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: following retirement accounts: Utah Retirement in the amount of approximately $72,440; General Electric in the approximate amount of $100,435; Roth IRA in the approximate amount of $18,252; FDIC in the approximate amount of $16,719 and $17,431; and Utah Pension in the amount of $15,281. 13. [Jeffrey] has the following retirement accounts: Fidelity in the approximate amount of $22,012; Bernstein in the approximate amount of $18,305. 14. The above retirement accounts will be divided equally between the parties. In addition [Deidre] has a premarital IRA in the approximate amount of $17,682 which is her sepa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a046a553-ae61-4ec0-a05e-06759d8d6b06","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138903-5138903","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170541-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"907 P.2d 264","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ement funds that can be \"presently valued\" should be equally divided. 20170541-CA 7 2019 UT App 106 Janson v. Janson ¶15 As a general matter, equitable division of a defined benefit plan is accomplished by the Woodward formula 4 and equitable division of a defined contribution plan is accomplished by dividing the value contributed during the marriage. Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 117, ¶ 23, 374 P.3d 1043. While Deidre's pension fund had a \"partial lump sum\" payout option—which was listed as the \"approximate value\" 5 in the Stipulation—it also had a monthly payment option. Because pension funds are presumptively divided accordi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93a95e95-ff30-4f65-a848-b528db4ce100","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170916-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5138908 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20170916-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138908 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93a95e95-ff30-4f65-a848-b528db4ce100","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170916-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93a95e95-ff30-4f65-a848-b528db4ce100","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5138908-5138908","title":"CourtListener opinion 5138908","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20170916-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: filing of a petition to modify before allowing changes to divorce decrees. First, rule 106(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states generally that, \"[e]xcept as provided in Utah Code Section 30-3-37, proceedings to modify a divorce decree or other final domestic relations order shall be commenced by filing a petition to modify.\" Second, Utah Code section 30-3-10.4(1) states specifically that, \"[o]n the petition of 20170916-CA 5 2019 UT App 104 Ross v. Ross one or both of the parents, . . . the court may, after a hearing, modify or terminate an order that established joint legal or physical custody\" if certain conditions are met"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5139167 Extracted reporter citation: 392 P.3d 985. Docket: 20180732-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139167 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: is Opinion, in which JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME concurred. JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN dissented, with opinion. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge: ¶1 Kevin Scott Peck appeals the district court's denial of several motions aimed at correcting an alleged clerical error in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the court. We affirm the district court's determination that the QDRO reflected the parties' intent but reverse the court's dismissal of Kevin's 1 rule 60(b) motion on timeliness grounds and remand for further proceedings. 1. \"As is our practice in cases where both parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , 427 P.3d 1165 (defining a QDRO as \"the document that would permit [an alternate payee] to access [the plan participant's] retirement funds\"); Bailey v. Bailey, 745 P.2d 830, 832 (Utah 1987) (explaining that a QDRO \"furnishes instructions to the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made\"); Potts v. Potts, 2018 UT App 169, ¶ 1 n.2, 436 P.3d 263 (\"A [QDRO] instructs the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when.\" (quotation simplified)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2014 UT 21, ¶ 17 n.28, 330 P.3d 704 (rejecting the assertion that a QDRO must"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e, we refer to the parties by their first name with no (continued…) Peck v. Peck BACKGROUND ¶2 Kevin married Reggie Ann Peck on June 15, 2001, and the parties divorced on July 15, 2003. Their decree of divorce awarded Kevin all interest in his retirement pension. ¶3 After a short separation, the parties began cohabiting and then remarried on October 22, 2004. The parties divorced a second time on November 19, 2010. The parties' second decree of divorce, which was based on the parties' stipulation, referenced the prior marriage, stating that the parties \"had previously been married to each other on June 15, 2001, t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90bc0a7f-0c16-4823-ad44-8502149b0388","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139167-5139167","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139167","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20180732-CA","extracted_reporter_citation":"392 P.3d 985","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ill be divided according to the formula set forth in the case of Woodward v. Woodward.\" It also provided that the division would be accomplished by the entry of a QDRO. ¶4 In early 2016, Reggie submitted a QDRO for approval, which stated, \"The Member and the Alternate Payee were married on June 15, 2001. The Member and the Alternate Payee were divorced on November 19, 2010.\" The QDRO further stated that \"[t]he Alternate Payee is awarded 50% of the Member's benefits accrued during the marriage.\" Kevin did not object to the QDRO, and the court signed it on May 12, 2016. 2 (…continued) disrespect intended by the apparent informa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bbc7ce9-abc7-443b-a350-91c3d1b6fd8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"473 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"789 A.2d 254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5139293 Extracted case name: E.M.R. v. C.A.F. Extracted reporter citation: 789 A.2d 254. Docket: 473 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139293 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bbc7ce9-abc7-443b-a350-91c3d1b6fd8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"473 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"789 A.2d 254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bbc7ce9-abc7-443b-a350-91c3d1b6fd8a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139293-5139293","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139293","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"473 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"789 A.2d 254","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: $750.00 for legal fees. 3. Deed for the marital property to be executed by [Husband]. 4. The two (2) remaining vehicles on the marital residence to be removed at the cost of [Husband], with [Wife] assuring that access to all vehicles is free and clear. 5. QDRO to be executed by the parties as outlined by the Master's report from October of 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that [Husband] complies with the above items, the contempt disposition hearing in the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed. J-A28031-21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in the event that the above items have not been complied with, cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5139447 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NARAYANAN KARUPPIAH and ROSALIN THURAIRAJAH. Extracted reporter citation: 216 Cal.App.2d 260. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139447 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e financial burden upon her when it ordered sanctions as required by section 271. Not so. The court clarified with Husband's counsel that the prior court order was to pay any sanction award from the distribution of community property funds pursuant 17 to a qualified domestic relations order and those funds had not yet been distributed. The court determined community property funds were available from which the sanction award to Husband could be satisfied. Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court acted well within its discretion. III We Do Not Consider Issues Raised For the First Time in Reply In her reply brief, Wife app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Code unless otherwise stated. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 A \"Husband and Wife married in a civil ceremony in January 2004. Wife entered the marriage without assets; Husband entered owning a house (that became the family home) and investment and retirement accounts.\" (Karuppiah I, supra, D070286.) The couple had a child in 2006. However, the marriage fell apart over a three-year period when Husband and Wife did not live as a married couple even though they resided in the same house. \"Husband filed a petition for dissolution in San Diego Superior Court in February 2011.\" (Ibid.) Between June 2014 and February 2016 Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l burden upon her when it ordered sanctions as required by section 271. Not so. The court clarified with Husband's counsel that the prior court order was to pay any sanction award from the distribution of community property funds pursuant 17 to a qualified domestic relations order and those funds had not yet been distributed. The court determined community property funds were available from which the sanction award to Husband could be satisfied. Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court acted well within its discretion. III We Do Not Consider Issues Raised For the First Time in Reply In her reply brief, Wife app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"337c105e-ec07-42de-ade7-edbba8b93704","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5139447-5139447","title":"CourtListener opinion 5139447","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 Cal.App.2d 260","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: al and \"[i]n March 2016 the court entered a judgment dissolving Husband and Wife's marriage. As part of the judgment, the court confirmed a home and several investment and retirement accounts as Husband's sole and separate premarital property, subject to some community property reimbursements to Wife. The court also found other investment and retirement accounts were Husband's premarital assets; however, because the parties disagreed about whether there were any community property contributions to these accounts, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer on the matter. The judgment included a provision ordering each party,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"223e6b43-b116-43fe-afd9-73c5acb3952f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215","title":"CourtListener opinion 5140215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"595 WDA 2021 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"169 A.3d 632","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5140215 Extracted reporter citation: 169 A.3d 632. Docket: 595 WDA 2021 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5140215 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"223e6b43-b116-43fe-afd9-73c5acb3952f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215","title":"CourtListener opinion 5140215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"595 WDA 2021 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"169 A.3d 632","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"223e6b43-b116-43fe-afd9-73c5acb3952f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215","title":"CourtListener opinion 5140215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"595 WDA 2021 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"169 A.3d 632","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2002.\" The 2005 Letter Agreement, which \"amends and restates\" the 2002 Letter Agreement, contained identical language and attached the 2002 Letter Agreement as an exhibit. See id.; see also Matlock v. Matlock, 664 A.2d 551, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and property settlement agreement (PSA) combine to form one agreement -7- J-S32002-21 where QDRO was attached to PSA as exhibit and PSA specifically refers to QRDO as exhibit). The matter sub judice is readily distinguishable. In addition to the fact that, with respect to the 2008 GSA, the Service Authorization lacks the \"incorporated by re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"223e6b43-b116-43fe-afd9-73c5acb3952f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5140215-5140215","title":"CourtListener opinion 5140215","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"595 WDA 2021 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"169 A.3d 632","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e 2005 Letter Agreement, which \"amends and restates\" the 2002 Letter Agreement, contained identical language and attached the 2002 Letter Agreement as an exhibit. See id.; see also Matlock v. Matlock, 664 A.2d 551, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and property settlement agreement (PSA) combine to form one agreement -7- J-S32002-21 where QDRO was attached to PSA as exhibit and PSA specifically refers to QRDO as exhibit). The matter sub judice is readily distinguishable. In addition to the fact that, with respect to the 2008 GSA, the Service Authorization lacks the \"incorporated by re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5141542 Extracted case name: MINDIOLA v. MINDIOLA. Extracted reporter citation: 176 A.3d 1124. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5141542 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ft Savings Plan 4) Father's Edward Jones Traditional IRA. IT IS ORDERED that Mother is entitled to one half of the community interest in each of the above accounts. The Court then appointed a special master to provide qualified domestic relation orders (\"QDRO\") to distribute the accounts. Yet the record includes no QDRO for the accounts. As a result, we cannot determine whether the military pension was correctly apportioned. Thus, the record shows no abuse of discretion. D. The Court Did Not Err in Determining Child Support. ¶32 Father argues the court failed to adhere to the child support guidelines by declin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: edetermine the community debt and its proper allocation as well as reimbursements, waste, and attorney's fees, and Mother's 401(k).5 ¶30 Father asserts that the court breached federal law by granting Mother one-half of the community interest in Father's Navy Pension Plan. 5 This court was not presented with the entire record, but because Father failed to provide transcripts from evidentiary hearings, we presume they support the order. Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 168, n.2 (1978). 8 MINDIOLA v. MINDIOLA Decision of the Court A community acquires a right in unvested pension benefits upon performance u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): to challenge the evidence was at the trial, which he voluntarily failed to attend. Likewise, we decline Father's request for remand to redetermine the community debt and its proper allocation as well as reimbursements, waste, and attorney's fees, and Mother's 401(k).5 ¶30 Father asserts that the court breached federal law by granting Mother one-half of the community interest in Father's Navy Pension Plan. 5 This court was not presented with the entire record, but because Father failed to provide transcripts from evidentiary hearings, we presume they support the order. Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 168, n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98980b12-5fa0-432d-91b5-d47f124136b8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5141542-5141542","title":"CourtListener opinion 5141542","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"176 A.3d 1124","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 2(C)(7) (The court's parenting plan must include \"[a] procedure for communicating . . . about the child, including methods and frequency.\"). The court did not err by selecting the software. C. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Equitably Dividing the Community Property. ¶27 The court must divide the community property equitably, though not necessarily in kind. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). We review the court's characterization of property de novo and its apportionment for an abuse of discretion. Davies v. Beres, 224 Ariz. 560, 562, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). Father disputes many aspects of the court's allocation, and we address each argume"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 5515838 Extracted reporter citation: 152 S.W.3d 556. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5515838 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ng any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (\"MDA\"). Conservator signed the MDA first, Wife signed next, and it was filed wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the Island home and all its contents, his vehicles, boat, motorcycle and any other personal property in his or his Conservator's possession. Husband shall be responsible for all his debts, including any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the Q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): debts, including any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (\"MDA\"). Conservator signed the MDA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a51711f5-dcc7-4b71-a751-94f425c08fc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-5515838-5515838","title":"CourtListener opinion 5515838","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"152 S.W.3d 556","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (\"MDA\"). Conservator signed the MDA first, Wife signed next, and it was filed wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 58537 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 06-40570. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 58537 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Taliaferro's pension benefits and demanded that his account be frozen. Goodyear promptly advised Ms. Parsons's attorney that ERISA did not allow payment of child support obligations from a pension benefit check without a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as defined by ERISA. Goodyear supplied Ms. Parsons's counsel with guidelines describing the elements of a QDRO. In May 2002 and December 2003, Goodyear received additional orders from the Smith County court directing it to withhold Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits to pay his child support obligations. Each time, Goodyear responded that the documents we"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler USDC No. 6:05-CV-195 Before JONES, Chief Judge and GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Taliaferro was married and divorced twice. Both of his ex-wives seek to obtain his pension benefits from his former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (\"Goodyear\"). Goodyear argues that the pension plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), and is withholding payment. Goodyear believes it has not yet received a court order sufficient under ERISA to permit it to distribute Mr. Taliaferro's benefits to either Ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: o was married and divorced twice. Both of his ex-wives seek to obtain his pension benefits from his former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (\"Goodyear\"). Goodyear argues that the pension plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), and is withholding payment. Goodyear believes it has not yet received a court order sufficient under ERISA to permit it to distribute Mr. Taliaferro's benefits to either Mabel Parsons, his first ex-wife, or Marcia Taliaferro, his second ex-wife. When Ms. Taliaferro sued Goodyear for payment in state court, Goodyear removed the action to federal court. Th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ddad6243-3963-4757-b236-380d19e73a17","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-58537-58537","title":"CourtListener opinion 58537","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"06-40570","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: claimed an interest in Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits and demanded that his account be frozen. Goodyear promptly advised Ms. Parsons's attorney that ERISA did not allow payment of child support obligations from a pension benefit check without a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), as defined by ERISA. Goodyear supplied Ms. Parsons's counsel with guidelines describing the elements of a QDRO. In May 2002 and December 2003, Goodyear received additional orders from the Smith County court directing it to withhold Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits to pay his child support obligations. Each time, Goodyear responded that the docum"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6105001 Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6105001 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecree on February 20, 2019. The parties' marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\") was incorporated by reference into the final decree. In connection with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in \"employer sponsored retirement plans\" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (\"TIAA\") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund (\"CREF\"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in \"employer sponsored retirement plans\" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (\"TIAA\") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund (\"CREF\"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set up in Wife's name that consisted of a TIAA account with a transferred amount of $165,158.75 and a CREF account with a transferre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ebruary 20, 2019. The parties' marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\") was incorporated by reference into the final decree. In connection with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in \"employer sponsored retirement plans\" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (\"TIAA\") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund (\"CREF\"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1e77211c-3b56-4a04-8476-b0a38872cac6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6105001-6105001","title":"CourtListener opinion 6105001","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"193 S.W.3d 495","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: represent the total amount owed to Wife per the parties' MDA.1 Regarding these annuities, the QDRO provided: Upon finalization of this Order and pursuant to the terms of said annuities, the current values of [Husband's] TIAA annuity accumulations for the Marital Portion defined below shall be awarded as the [Wife's] sole and exclusive property to be applied to TIAA annuities pro rata subject to the terms and limitations of said annuities. .... [Wife's] annuities will be issued with the same investment allocation as [Husband's] applied pro rate[sic]. [Wife] must change the investment allocation once his or her annui"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39d5c32-3225-4281-8f55-7cf92f9fdb85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.2d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6111740 Extracted case name: M.B. v. R.B. Extracted reporter citation: 161 S.W.2d 769. Docket: 18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6111740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39d5c32-3225-4281-8f55-7cf92f9fdb85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.2d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39d5c32-3225-4281-8f55-7cf92f9fdb85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.2d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Each party shall agree to appear at a designated time for purposes of executing all documents necessary to effectuate the Final Decree of Divorce. Such documents shall include but not limited to Special Warranty Deed, Deed of Trust to Secure Assumption, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Quitclaim Deeds, Assignments of Escrow Funds, assignments of insurance coverage, utility deposits, certificates of title to automobile, power of attorney necessary to transfer automobile, signature cards on custodial accounts, stock transfer certificates, trust agreements, security agreements collateral pledge agreements, assignments of interest, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39d5c32-3225-4281-8f55-7cf92f9fdb85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.2d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ty shall agree to appear at a designated time for purposes of executing all documents necessary to effectuate the Final Decree of Divorce. Such documents shall include but not limited to Special Warranty Deed, Deed of Trust to Secure Assumption, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Quitclaim Deeds, Assignments of Escrow Funds, assignments of insurance coverage, utility deposits, certificates of title to automobile, power of attorney necessary to transfer automobile, signature cards on custodial accounts, stock transfer certificates, trust agreements, security agreements collateral pledge agreements, assignments of interest, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b39d5c32-3225-4281-8f55-7cf92f9fdb85","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111740-6111740","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an","extracted_reporter_citation":"161 S.W.2d 769","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ki house and a security agreement regarding Edward's business with UCC filing. The language of the MSA clearly shows that the parties intended that additional documents would be drafted and signed by the parties in order to effectuate their agreement for property division. The MSA was not a final conveyance of any property. Exhibit A merely restates and complies with the final decree language. The trial court did not significantly alter the parties' written agreement or deviate from their intent as manifested in the MSA. Davis, 2014 WL 890899 at *9. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in attaching Exhibit A to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6111749 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: entry neither was memorialized as a signed order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6111749 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's retirement benefits in his EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement plan and 100% of funds in any 401K plan arising out of Shakouri's employment with other employers. The decree stated that the divisions were \"more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to 2 be signed by the Court,\" however the trial court did not issue the orders at the time it entered the divorce decree. In March 2020, Badiyan filed a petition to enter the QDROs. In August 2020, after a hearing, the trial court entered two QDROs to effectuate division of the retirement benefits as specified in the 2011 divorce decree. Shakouri ap"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , C.J.; Bassel and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Shahram Shakouri appeals the trial court's issuance of two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). The QDROs relate to the division and distribution of retirement benefits set out in the 2011 divorce decree between Shakouri and his ex-wife Fariba Badiyan. Shakouri contends that (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the QDROs, (2) the QDROs substantively changed the division of property ordered in the divorce decree, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance, and (4) that B"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rty made in the divorce decree. Next, Shakouri claims that the QDROs impermissibly altered the division of property set out in the divorce decree. We disagree. A court rendering a final divorce decree may render an enforceable QDRO \"permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits divisible . . . to an alternate payee or other lawful payee.\" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101(a); Marshall, 99 S.W.3d at 156. The June 2011 divorce decree awarded Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement benefits and 100% of the funds in any other of Shakouri's retirement plans. The two QDROs con"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b6cf3b9-8853-475a-80ed-24560409f7d4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6111749-6111749","title":"CourtListener opinion 6111749","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry neither was memorialized as a signed order","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): and granted two motions for new trial. The 2011 divorce decree divided Shakouri's two retirement accounts. Specifically, the decree awarded Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's retirement benefits in his EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement plan and 100% of funds in any 401K plan arising out of Shakouri's employment with other employers. The decree stated that the divisions were \"more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to 2 be signed by the Court,\" however the trial court did not issue the orders at the time it entered the divorce decree. In March 2020, Badiyan filed a petition to enter the QDR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6112301 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6112301 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion plan in which husband participated and that PWC's pension program was not an ERISA plan, but rather, had been established by PWC as a \"non-qualified\" retirement plan. As a result of this decision by PWC, the plan was not subject to division by way of a QDRO, meaning that, when the pension benefits eventually are paid out, all of them must be paid first to husband. Consequently, husband will be required to pay taxes on the entire amount of the payments even though some portion of the payments will represent wife's interest in the marital share of the pension. It is undisputed that a portion of husband's pen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: transferred funds to pay the mortgage on the marital home, various taxes, the parties' life insurance premiums and legal fees, and tuition and other expenses related to the children. Husband's employment also entitled him to participate in the PWC Partner Retirement Plan (pension), which is designed to provide him continued income after retirement. The firm requires husband to retire at age sixty, but he and wife had discussions with their financial advisor about the possibility of him retiring at fifty-five. Provided the firm has sufficient assets at the time, the pension will afford husband an annuity upon his retirem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to pay the mortgage on the marital home, various taxes, the parties' life insurance premiums and legal fees, and tuition and other expenses related to the children. Husband's employment also entitled him to participate in the PWC Partner Retirement Plan (pension), which is designed to provide him continued income after retirement. The firm requires husband to retire at age sixty, but he and wife had discussions with their financial advisor about the possibility of him retiring at fifty-five. Provided the firm has sufficient assets at the time, the pension will afford husband an annuity upon his retirement. It is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04586953-03eb-470e-adef-d3a6f6b7bafb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6112301-6112301","title":"CourtListener opinion 6112301","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ntending the trial court failed \"to account for the fact that Husband will bear 100 percent of the taxes on the pension payments.\" The evidence established that PWC had a pension plan in which husband participated and that PWC's pension program was not an ERISA plan, but rather, had been established by PWC as a \"non-qualified\" retirement plan. As a result of this decision by PWC, the plan was not subject to division by way of a QDRO, meaning that, when the pension benefits eventually are paid out, all of them must be paid first to husband. Consequently, husband will be required to pay taxes on the entire amoun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6113868 Extracted reporter citation: 423 S.W.3d 493. Docket: 13-20-00118-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6113868 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rom the 343rd District Court of Aransas County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant Sharon H. Windham appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) reflecting her interest in appellee William M. Windham Jr.'s retirement benefits as awarded in the parties' divorce decree. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 9.102. In two issues, which we treat as one, Sharon argues that the trial court's order improperly amends, modifies, or alters the express terms of the divorce decree. We reverse and remand. I. B"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant Sharon H. Windham appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) reflecting her interest in appellee William M. Windham Jr.'s retirement benefits as awarded in the parties' divorce decree. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 9.102. In two issues, which we treat as one, Sharon argues that the trial court's order improperly amends, modifies, or alters the express terms of the divorce decree. We reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Sharon and William divorced in 2000 after twenty-two years of marriage. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: post-divorce enforcement order. Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 500 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). A trial court that renders a final divorce decree \"retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render an enforceable [QDRO] permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits . . . to an alternate payee or other lawful payee.\" TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101(a). The trial court also retains \"jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court.\" Id. § 9.1045(a). However, after its plenary pow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a66d2885-dd67-4018-bb6c-22ed85ecefa8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6113868-6113868","title":"CourtListener opinion 6113868","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"13-20-00118-CV","extracted_reporter_citation":"423 S.W.3d 493","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): divorce decree awarded Sharon a fixed sum as reflected by the value of his retirement plan at the time of divorce. 8 8 William does not state what that fixed sum is or how it should be calculated. 5 Retirement plans are commonly classified as either a defined contribution plan or a defined benefit plan. See Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439, 440 n.1 (Tex. 2003) (citing Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 445 n.1 (Tex. 2003)). In a defined contribution plan, the employee has a separate account similar to that of a savings account into which the employee and employer make contributions. Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140, 148–49"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 617924 Extracted reporter citation: 389 F.3d 386. Docket: 10-1862-cv. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 617924 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: judgment interest were available in this case, the district court noted that the plan document specifically recognizes the right of a beneficiary to recover accumulated earnings where a portion of his account has been segregated for some time pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is ultimately declared invalid. The existence of this provision, along with general fairness considerations, led the court to conclude that \"implicit in the Plan's terms is the commonly held notion that there is a time value to the extended period that Milgram has been without money the Plan owed him.\" We agree. The Plan argues that the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 47.93 more than she was entitled to receive under the settlement. Milgram did not discover the error immediately. Shortly after the accounts were segregated, he terminated his membership in the plans and rolled the remaining balances over to an Individual Retirement Account. Breen withdrew the balance of her account in September 1998. It was only in June of 1999 that Milgram, at his lawyer's insistence, 4 reviewed his plan account statements and discovered the overpayment to Breen. By that time, none of the erroneously transferred funds remained in the Plan. In October 1999 Orthopedic, acting as plan administrator, deman"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2011 (Argued: September 12, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011) Docket Nos. 10-1862-cv (L), 10-1893 (con) ROBERT W. MILGRAM, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, — v.— THE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellant, — v.— ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF 65 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK, P.C., as plan administrator of the Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan; MICHAEL MCCLURE, M.D.; CHARLES W. CARPENTER, M.D.; KAMLESH S. DESAI, M.D.; LAURENCE U. SCHENK, M.D.; DOUGLASS R. KERR, M.D.; ROBERT M. SEDOR, JR., CFP, RCF, U"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4e98012-7a38-43b1-be18-dd51d72108f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-617924-617924","title":"CourtListener opinion 617924","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: H, Circuit Judges. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above. Plaintiff-appellee Robert Milgram filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, Norah Breen. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge) entered judgment against defendant The Orthopedic Associates Defi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 619740 Extracted reporter citation: 389 F.3d 386. Docket: 10-1862-cv. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 619740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: judgment interest were available in this case, the district court noted that the plan document specifically recognizes the right of a beneficiary to recover accumulated earnings where a portion of his account has been segregated for some time pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is ultimately declared invalid. The existence of this provision, along with general fairness considerations, led the court to conclude that \"implicit in the Plan's terms is the commonly held notion that there is a time value to the extended period that Milgram has been without money the Plan owed him.\" We agree. The Plan argues that the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 47.93 more than she was entitled to receive under the settlement. Milgram did not discover the error immediately. Shortly after the accounts were segregated, he terminated his membership in the plans and rolled the remaining balances over to an Individual Retirement Account. Breen withdrew the balance of her account in 4 September 1998. It was only in June of 1999 that Milgram, at his lawyer's insistence, reviewed his plan account statements and discovered the overpayment to Breen. By that time, none of the erroneously transferred funds remained in the Plan. In October 1999 Orthopedic, acting as plan administrator, deman"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IT August Term, 2011 (Argued: September 12, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011) Amended: December 23, 2011 Docket Nos. 10-1862-cv (L), 10-1893 (CON)* ROBERT W. MILGRAM, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, — v.— THE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellant, — v.— ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF 65 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK, P.C., as plan administrator of the Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan; MICHAEL MCCLURE, M.D.; CHARLES W. CARPENTER, M.D.; KAMLESH S. DESAI, M.D.; LAURENCE U. SCHENK, M.D.; DOUGLASS R. KERR, M.D.; ROBERT M. SEDOR, JR., CFP, RCF, U"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5aa8e859-8406-4f59-9dbe-a7ddc524b8c9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-619740-619740","title":"CourtListener opinion 619740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"10-1862-cv","extracted_reporter_citation":"389 F.3d 386","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: . BREEN. Defendants. B e f o r e: CALABRESI, WESLEY, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. * The consolidated case was withdrawn by stipulation filed July 22, 2011. Plaintiff-appellee Robert Milgram filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, Norah Breen. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge) entered judgment against defendant The Orthopedic Associates Defi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6216832 Extracted reporter citation: 652 A.2d 393. Docket: 558 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6216832 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ees. Husband filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly opened the HELOC during the marriage and that it had a $0 balance at the time of the equitable distribution trial. He claimed that he intended to pay the HELOC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: paid from the proceeds. Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to pay her the full value of the HELOC and $10,000 in attorney's fees. Husband filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly open"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: band filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly opened the HELOC during the marriage and that it had a $0 balance at the time of the equitable distribution trial. He claimed that he intended to pay the HELOC"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1da8ad61-c98e-401e-8728-4668dd1923a4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216832-6216832","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216832","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"558 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"652 A.2d 393","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: vision at No(s): 18-90025-D BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Sam E. Colton (Husband) and Katherine Colton (Wife) were involved in contentious divorce litigation that proceeded to an equitable distribution trial before a Master. The Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) dividing the marital assets, including the marital home. When neither party filed exceptions, the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) entered a divorce decree and incorporated the Report into an equitable distribution order (Order). After the Order was rati"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6216834 Extracted case name: ROBERT MARTIN THOMPSON v. CHRISTIE LEE THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: represented by the numerator. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6216834 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iled by the clerk's office, the judgment was not yet a final, non-appealable judgment. Thus, Rule 59.04 is the applicable rule, and we decline to address any argument for relief under Rule 60.02. 4 The order went on to state: Questions arose regarding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is anticipated to be required in order to implement the parties' announced agreement and the -4- This appeal followed. ISSUES Wife contends that the trial court erred by entering the Final Order which was contrary to the parties' announced understanding and which provided for an erroneous division of Wife's TCRS retirement benefits.5 H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: llars, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2020-01293-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ The sole issue on appeal in this divorce action pertains to the coverture formula employed to fund the husband's marital interest in the wife's retirement account via a deferred distribution method. On the morning the case was set for a final hearing, the parties and their attorneys appeared in open court and announced they had agreed to the division of the marital estate with the exception of the implementing language required to fund the husband's marital interest in the wife's retirement account. Because the wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: able framework for the division of Wife's unvested retirement benefits and limits Husband's award to his martial portion of Wife's retirement account. Husband takes the position that the standard coverture formula only applies to the marital share of unvested pension benefits because the coverture fraction7 requires the years of Wife's service accrued during the marriage to be divided by Wife's total years of service calculated on the date of her retirement. Husband further argues that application of the agreed-upon coverture percentage8 ensures an equitable division of the marital portion of Wife's retirement benefits."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d9b75272-a14f-4915-b3f2-9913eca3fbb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6216834-6216834","title":"CourtListener opinion 6216834","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"represented by the numerator","extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e clerk's office, the judgment was not yet a final, non-appealable judgment. Thus, Rule 59.04 is the applicable rule, and we decline to address any argument for relief under Rule 60.02. 4 The order went on to state: Questions arose regarding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is anticipated to be required in order to implement the parties' announced agreement and the -4- This appeal followed. ISSUES Wife contends that the trial court erred by entering the Final Order which was contrary to the parties' announced understanding and which provided for an erroneous division of Wife's TCRS retirement benefits.5 H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6226370 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF GARY E. ERLANDSON AND SUSAN KAY ERLANDSON Upon the Petition of GARY E. ERLANDSON. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S. Ct. 1400. Docket: 20-1607. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6226370 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ion provision and remanded for entry of a substituted order. Id. at *7; see also Tekippe, 2017 WL 510985, at *2 (holding that the court could not \"exercise its reservation of jurisdiction as set forth in the decree and order inclusion of a paragraph in the QDRO allowing [the husband] to name a successor alternate payee\" because it would result in bifurcated property divisions). to that division. It is thus akin to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which we have characterized as a procedural device \"entered to effectuate the property division in the dissolution decree.\" In re Marriage of Heath-Clark,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ithin the contemplation of the court at the time of the decree.\" In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 N.W.2d 866, 870–71 (Iowa 2014); see Iowa Code § 598.21C(1). The only change referenced in Susan's brief on appeal is that \"[she] is not receiving any of [Gary's] retirement benefits.\" Susan does not 12 develop any supporting argument under the traditional modification standard, instead relying only on her contention that Gary's post-divorce election to receive disability benefits fell within the scope of the pension division order. In doing so, she essentially concedes the circumstances as they allegedly occurred were contemplat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nance' decree\" authorized by Iowa Code section 598.28 (2010). 3 stipulation, the parties agreed Susan would receive the family home, any \"real and personal property, household goods, and furnishings\" then in her possession, and a \"one-half interest in any pension plan, 401K plans and/or any other retirement plan.\" When Gary filed for divorce—three years after the stipulation was approved—Susan asked the district court to include those terms in its decree dissolving their marriage. She also made a request for spousal support. After a trial on Gary's dissolution petition, the district court granted Susan's reque"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2387f3b-40f2-43ae-b18d-0b50cf6385c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6226370-6226370","title":"CourtListener opinion 6226370","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1607","extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S. Ct. 1400","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): authorized by Iowa Code section 598.28 (2010). 3 stipulation, the parties agreed Susan would receive the family home, any \"real and personal property, household goods, and furnishings\" then in her possession, and a \"one-half interest in any pension plan, 401K plans and/or any other retirement plan.\" When Gary filed for divorce—three years after the stipulation was approved—Susan asked the district court to include those terms in its decree dissolving their marriage. She also made a request for spousal support. After a trial on Gary's dissolution petition, the district court granted Susan's request for spou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 625735 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 625735 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ceeds with the Court and would thereafter be dismissed from the action. 2 By statute, this anti-alienation provision does not apply to a certain class of orders known as \"qualified domestic relations orders\" (\"QDROs\"). 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). To qualify as a QDRO, an order must satisfy certain statutory requirements, such as clearly specifying an alternate payee, the amount of benefits to be paid to the alternate payee, the period to which 4 Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Contrary to the Fifth Circuit, the Court held that the ex-wife's waiver \"did not constitute an assignment or alienation re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: into a Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\"), which, in relevant part, provided: [T]he parties mutually agree to waive, release, and relinquish any and all right, title and interest either may have in and to the other's IRA account(s), or any other such retirement benefit and deferred savings plan of like kind and character, and neither shall make any claim to possession of such property as it is presently titled. The divorce was then finalized in New Jersey state court, with a final divorce decree incorporating the PSA entered on July 10, 2008. Nine months after the divorce, William died intestate without having chan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n Kennedy The leading case in this area is Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009). The facts in Kennedy are virtually identical to those in this case. In Kennedy, an employee participated in an ERISA employee pension benefit plan and designated his wife as the sole beneficiary. The couple subsequently divorced, and as part of the divorce decree the wife agreed to waive her interest in her husband's pension plan. However, the husband died without amending the pension plan documents to replace his ex-wife as the designated beneficiary. The husband's estate claimed a right"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4393b3c-cbef-4141-88f0-d3748862223f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-625735-625735","title":"CourtListener opinion 625735","citation":"1056(d)(3)","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"1056(d)(3)","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Esq. Cozen O'Connor 457 Haddonfield Road Liberty View, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-0000 Counsel for Appellees ____________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ BARRY, Circuit Judge This is a dispute over the disposition of proceeds from a decedent's ERISA-governed 401(k) plan. The decedent, William Kensinger (\"William\") was married to Adele Kensinger (\"Adele\") until their divorce in 2008. As part of their divorce decree, Adele waived her right to the proceeds of William's 401(k) plan. William, however, neglected to replace Adele as the designated beneficiary of his 401(k) plan prior to his death a few months"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6316773 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6316773 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd based upon Indiana law. The arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or re‐ tirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Re‐ lations Order (QDRO), to be approved and ef‐ fectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don to Anne in any other man‐ ner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Eliza‐ beth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specifical"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d account on August 25, 1995.\" Id. at 33 (emphasis omitted). The court de‐ termined that this was \"an order for transfer of property, namely the in‐kind asset allocation of a portion of Wife's IRA account\" because it explicitly ordered a distribution from the retirement account to the husband. Id. A federal case shortly after Paxton reached a similar con‐ clusion. In Brown, the court also examined the language of a divorce decree to determine the type of interest it provided. The critical part of the decree said: \"The parties' property No. 21‐1423 9 shall be divided between them as set out in Paragraph 28 of this Decree. [The h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: property within a marriage dissolution. See Paxton v. Paxton, 709 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. App. 1999); Brown v. Pitzer, 249 B.R. 303 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The bank‐ ruptcy court read the award as specifying the exact source of the funds, the equal distribution of Donald's pension fund and 401(k) account, and ordering Donald to transfer a portion of the property to Anne through an assignment, Qualified Do‐ mestic Relations Order, or other mechanism agreeable to both parties. These factors had also been present in the divorce cases finding that the plaintiff‐spouses had been awarded property interests rather than dischargeable money ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88cd49cb-a695-4b16-96c5-8c093a4c61a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6316773-6316773","title":"CourtListener opinion 6316773","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): marriage dissolution. See Paxton v. Paxton, 709 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. App. 1999); Brown v. Pitzer, 249 B.R. 303 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The bank‐ ruptcy court read the award as specifying the exact source of the funds, the equal distribution of Donald's pension fund and 401(k) account, and ordering Donald to transfer a portion of the property to Anne through an assignment, Qualified Do‐ mestic Relations Order, or other mechanism agreeable to both parties. These factors had also been present in the divorce cases finding that the plaintiff‐spouses had been awarded property interests rather than dischargeable money judg‐ ments. D. D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6317067 Extracted case name: AGUINIGA v. AGUINIGA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6317067 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: torneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax ret"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax returns, and \"encourage[d]\" Husband to refinance the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ion of Husband's overpayment claim. We affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that wa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c51b2a5-f22f-4a30-a0cb-8710d33d6cbf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317067-6317067","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317067","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: he reasons stated below, we vacate the ruling for temporary spousal maintenance arrearages and remand for reconsideration of Husband's overpayment claim. We affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e5e4f56-58c2-4c15-b0c6-d36b48a7b4fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317746","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6317746 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of ADALBERTO and GEMMA TORRES. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6317746 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e5e4f56-58c2-4c15-b0c6-d36b48a7b4fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317746","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e5e4f56-58c2-4c15-b0c6-d36b48a7b4fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317746","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D'Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa J. Schmitt for Appellant. Shelly K. Pawchuk for Respondent. Gemma Torres appeals a postjudgment order distributing the community property interest in her retirement plan and awarding her ex- husband, Adalberto Torres, attorney fees and costs as sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty. Gemma contends the family court erred by imposing sanctions because Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divorced in 2010. The judgment of dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e5e4f56-58c2-4c15-b0c6-d36b48a7b4fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317746","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: use Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divorced in 2010. The judgment of dissolution required equal division of the parties' retirement plans by a qualified domestic relations order. When Adalberto submitted such an order to Gemma's employer, the employer informed him it had distributed all the funds to Gemma and she no longer had a retirement account. Adalberto filed a request for order (RFO) and supporting declaration asking the family court to enforce the agreed distribution of retirement funds by awarding him half the amount Gemma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e5e4f56-58c2-4c15-b0c6-d36b48a7b4fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6317746-6317746","title":"CourtListener opinion 6317746","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: GEMMA TORRES, Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D'Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa J. Schmitt for Appellant. Shelly K. Pawchuk for Respondent. Gemma Torres appeals a postjudgment order distributing the community property interest in her retirement plan and awarding her ex- husband, Adalberto Torres, attorney fees and costs as sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty. Gemma contends the family court erred by imposing sanctions because Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6319404 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 460. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6319404 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 019, minus credit for Defendant's one-half interest in Plaintiff's 401(K), which is marital in nature and valued at approximately $25,311.31 as of August 12, 2019. The decree further provided that Patricia was responsible for the cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or Division of Property Order (\"DOPO\") necessary to effectuate the transfer of the retirement assets. There was no further explanation of what 50 percent meant. {¶4} After retaining the services of an attorney qualified to draft the required DOPO, Patricia learned that she would not be able to receive her portion of Richard's OPERS retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t of the parties as placed on the record and affirmed by each party.1 Approximately two months later, on January 29, 2020, the trial court journalized a decree of divorce. {¶3} As relevant to this appeal, the decree addressed the division of the parties' retirement accounts. It provided that: Plaintiff is entitled to 50% of Defendant's two retirement accounts: Defendant is vested in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), which is marital in nature and approximate value $261,047.oo as of May 24, 2019, and Defendant is fully vested in a Retirement Savings IRA, which is marital in nature and approximate"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ervices of an attorney qualified to draft the required DOPO, Patricia learned that she would not be able to receive her portion of Richard's OPERS retirement account in an immediate lump-sum payment. Rather, she could only receive 50 percent of his monthly pension payments and only once he retired. And, in the absence of an election of joint-and-survivor benefits, her payments would cease upon Richard's death. Because Patricia had believed otherwise, she filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). The motion requested that the trial court modify the portion of the divorce decree concerning the di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8db3320d-8b8a-430a-929c-97bbea901696","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6319404-6319404","title":"CourtListener opinion 6319404","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 460","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ' agreement. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS value April 30, 2019 of $3099.78. Both of these Plaintiff shall receive 50% for the dates of marriage, May 9, 1997 through May 24, 2019, minus credit for Defendant's one-half interest in Plaintiff's 401(K), which is marital in nature and valued at approximately $25,311.31 as of August 12, 2019. The decree further provided that Patricia was responsible for the cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or Division of Property Order (\"DOPO\") necessary to effectuate the transfer of the retirement assets. There was no further explan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6320684 Extracted case name: J.K. v. A.K. Extracted reporter citation: 276 S.W.3d 138. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6320684 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: does to any other final judgment, barring subsequent collateral attack even if the divorce decree improperly divided the property.\" Murray, 276 S.W.3d at 144. 5 The federal ERISA regime gave birth to a \"species of post-divorce enforcement order\" called qualified domestic relations orders or QDROs.2 In re Marriage of Denning & Stokes, No. 14-19-00646-CV, 2021 WL 3577731, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 10, 2021, no pet.); Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 500. A QDRO is a statutorily sanctioned domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: *2; Lipsey v. Lipsey, 983 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). A court order acceptable for processing or COAP, though unrelated to ERISA, is similar in kind to a QDRO and will be discussed herein as if synonymous with a QDRO. See Private retirement plans: federal law—State procedures for entering QDROs, 2 Equit. Distrib. of Prop., 4th § 6:20 nn.1, 26; see also Marshall, 99 S.W.3d at 159 (treating a COAP as it would a QDRO). See generally 5 C.F.R. § 838.103. The trial court may render a postdecree QDRO \"to ‘correct' or ‘clarify' a prior QDRO ‘to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Trial Court No. 20-6807-462 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Years after their divorce, Fabian Thomas and Denise Daniel are embroiled in a dispute over their rights to the former's pension benefits. Thomas moved for an order to clarify that Daniel had a limited stake in the benefits, but the trial court denied him relief. We hold that Thomas was entitled to such a clarifying order, and so we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Thomas began working for the federal government in 1989. He and Daniel married in 2000. A divorce decree dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bdf24a73-c63e-4447-8eb7-f22f8602a282","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320684-6320684","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320684","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"276 S.W.3d 138","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: judicata applies to the property division in a final divorce decree, just as it does to any other final judgment, barring subsequent collateral attack even if the divorce decree improperly divided the property.\" Murray, 276 S.W.3d at 144. 5 The federal ERISA regime gave birth to a \"species of post-divorce enforcement order\" called qualified domestic relations orders or QDROs.2 In re Marriage of Denning & Stokes, No. 14-19-00646-CV, 2021 WL 3577731, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 10, 2021, no pet.); Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 500. A QDRO is a statutorily sanctioned domestic relations order that crea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6320935 Extracted case name: LLC v. MEJ. Extracted reporter citation: 27 S.W.3d 913. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6320935 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ld filed a petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County (\"trial court\"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Verified Claim Against Estate (\"Claim 1\") seeking compensation for his \"representation for reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cy. As a result of the raid, on May 4, 2016, the State of Tennessee (the \"State\") seized several of Decedent and Husband's marital assets, including: (1) a coin collection; (2) silver bars; (3) $13,280.74 in currency; and (4) the full value of Husband's VOYA retirement account. Thereafter, Decedent allegedly asked Appellant to represent her in challenging the State's seizure of these marital assets. On May 6, 2016, Appellant wrote a letter to Decedent concerning his representation of her in the seizure matter. In the letter, Appellant outlined a proposed contingency fee agreement whereby he would be compensated \"33-1/3% of any"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: of the assets recovered from the seizure. On March 22, 2018, Mr. Bonifield filed a petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County (\"trial court\"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Ve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23b3adf2-21c4-4a37-997f-2bf9e8cfb4de","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6320935-6320935","title":"CourtListener opinion 6320935","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"27 S.W.3d 913","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County (\"trial court\"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Verified Claim Against Estate (\"Claim 1\") seeking compensation for his \"representation for reco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6321520 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 666 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6321520 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e). After two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May 19, 2017. The following year, a dispute arose over Husband failing to give Wife his \"high-3 amount,\" w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . I. A. In October 2013, Husband filed for divorce from Diane Mackie (Wife). After two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May 19, 2017. The following year, a dispute arose over Husband failing to give Wife his \"high-3 amount,\" w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b19dcb3a-5749-46e7-ba43-e468baf94d8d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6321520-6321520","title":"CourtListener opinion 6321520","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"666 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: homas Mackie (Husband) appeals from the contempt order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 We note that this is the sixth appeal involving equitable distribution in this divorce. Mackie v. Mackie, No. 465 WDA 2019, 2019 WL 7341798, at *1 (Pa. Super. Dec. 30, 2019) (\"This matter has a long and tortured procedural history.\" Appeal involved Husband's overdue arrearages which we held became subject to full range of collection remedies, including the attachment and seizure of assets held in financial institutions.); Mack"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6323829 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 155. Docket: 786 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6323829 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nstitute an extraordinary circumstance and is not a fatal defect. Id.; see also Lemmo v. Lemmo, (Pa. Super. February 13, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (\"Because we agree with the determination of the trial court it lacked jurisdiction to modify Husband's QDRO, we affirm the order dismissing Husband's petition for special relief.\"). Here, the parties mistakenly thought that a survivorship interest for Wife would cause no reduction in Husband's monthly pension payments. This error is rooted in an undesired outcome of agreed-upon language in the COAP and the clarification order, but not in the content of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: will have the right to designate survivors as to her benefits, which will, however be her children. Separation Agreement, 6/14/2019, at Paragraph 5 (emphasis added). The COAP was entered on August 6, 2019, and it set forth Husband and Wife's respective retirement benefits. Paragraph 7 of the COAP provided that -2- J-S03032-22 Wife \"is entitled to 35.772% of [Husband's] annuity[.]\" 2 The COAP provided further in Paragraph 7 that Wife would be awarded a \"Former Spouse Survivor Annuity\" pursuant to federal law: Under Section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, [Wife] is awarded a Former Souse Survivor Annuity u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2022 Kathleen M. Parsons (Wife)1 appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County (trial court) rescinding an order concerning the distribution of interests in the pension of her now ex-husband, Richard W. Parsons (Husband), a retired postal worker. In sum, Husband and Wife entered a Separation Agreement on June 14, 2019. Then, on August 17, 2019, they each signed a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP), which implemented that Separation Agreement. On August 25, 2020, the trial court entered an order clarifying t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0850ea5a-5098-4b1b-8699-126a6d6eadb5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6323829-6323829","title":"CourtListener opinion 6323829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"786 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"799 A.2d 155","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: 35.772% of [Husband's] annuity[.]\" 2 The COAP provided further in Paragraph 7 that Wife would be awarded a \"Former Spouse Survivor Annuity\" pursuant to federal law: Under Section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, [Wife] is awarded a Former Souse Survivor Annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System, in the same amount to which [Wife] would have been entitled if the Divorce had not occurred. She is to continue as beneficiary of the Civil Service Retirement System survivor annuity to which she was entitled at the time of Divorce. COAP Enabling Order, 6/19/2019, at Paragraph 7 (emphasis added). Finally,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6328221 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ALISA DANAE SUNDBY AND TAYLOR RAY SUNDBY Upon the Petition of ALISA DANAE SUNDBY. Extracted reporter citation: 943 N.W.2d 15. Docket: 20-1552. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6328221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Ali in the full amount of $22,581, it is to be divided equally, with each party awarded $11,290.50. Thus, both parties are awarded approximately $242,000 in marital assets. The parties shall determine whether the Fidelity account must be divided through a qualified domestic relations order and, if required, Ali's counsel shall prepare the document and submit it to the district court within thirty days of the filing of procedendo. D. Refinance of the marital home. Taylor requested that the court order Ali to refinance the note and mortgage on the marital home so that the obligation would be solely hers and remove him, to set a time lim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the obligation to equitably divide \"all\" of the marital property between the parties in a decree. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1), (5). The district court decree made a very detailed award of the marital home, vehicles, bank accounts, Danaher stock accounts and retirement accounts. Earlier, in its findings, the court determined that Ali's Exhibit 163-2 of proposed distribution of personal property best accomplished an equitable division. However, in the decretal portion, the court awarded to Ali \"the household 16 goods in her possession,\" as well as the dogs14 and her jewelry, specifically her diamond ring. As for Taylor, the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hart and modify the decree accordingly. ASSET VALUE ALISA TAYLOR Family Home - Harvey, IA 235,000 235,000 2008 Toyota Highlander 4,287 4,287 2007 Ford Focus 3,115 3,115 2006 Hyundai Sonata 500 500 Bank Acct. #8252 3,083 3,083 Bank Acct. #1843 151 151 401k Acct. 230,035 69,778 160,257 Danaher Restricted Stock Awards 30,871 split 15,435.50 15,435.50 Danaher Stock Options 126,806 split 63,403 63,403 Danaher Restricted Stock Units 2,573 split 1,286.50 1,286.50 Fidelity Account - Ind TOD 22,581 11,290.5 11,290.5 Family Home 2,500 2,500 Furnishing/Appliances Lawnmower and Tools 500 500 Taylor's Furniture 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c9cd281-8a71-400b-9743-9f60c2d1d521","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328221-6328221","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328221","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20-1552","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 N.W.2d 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: full amount of $22,581, it is to be divided equally, with each party awarded $11,290.50. Thus, both parties are awarded approximately $242,000 in marital assets. The parties shall determine whether the Fidelity account must be divided through a qualified domestic relations order and, if required, Ali's counsel shall prepare the document and submit it to the district court within thirty days of the filing of procedendo. D. Refinance of the marital home. Taylor requested that the court order Ali to refinance the note and mortgage on the marital home so that the obligation would be solely hers and remove him, to set a time lim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d238dd6-9bfd-4bfd-8534-9f0a41440e07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328430","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6328430 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6328430 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d238dd6-9bfd-4bfd-8534-9f0a41440e07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328430","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4d238dd6-9bfd-4bfd-8534-9f0a41440e07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6328430-6328430","title":"CourtListener opinion 6328430","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ied he was argumentative with his probation officer. Instead, he blamed their communication problems on his PTSD. The People argued for the upper term. The trial court imposed the upper term. The trial court noted defendant was on probation for disobeying a domestic relations order when he committed the crime and that he denied the original assault and his anger issues. The trial court further noted that defendant absconded from probation supervision for almost a year and had not taken responsibility for his role in the incident. Finally, the trial court noted probation had exhausted all of the options to assist defendant. DISCUSSION"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6329729 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 885 N.E.2d 1053. Docket: entry order of May 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6329729 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n look to see whether a trial court's action constitutes an improper modification of property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found it had been the intention of the parties for the wife to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: see whether a trial court's action constitutes an improper modification of property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0d05913-c8ed-418c-93d1-bbe165dfe35d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329729-6329729","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329729","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entry order of May 22","extracted_reporter_citation":"885 N.E.2d 1053","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Judge Presiding. JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court's order of June 6, 2019, was an enforcement order and not a modification of the property division of a previously entered judgment of dissolution of marriage, and the court's order of July 22, 2020, was neither a modification of that order nor of the prior judgment. ¶2 After several years of litigation, the parties were divorced in February 2018, and as part of the judgment, the trial court entered an order establishing maintenance and dividing th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6329974 Extracted reporter citation: 69 N.E.3d 664. Docket: 1: The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6329974 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the husband's military pension based upon a marriage term of six years, representing the period of time the parties had been together during the husband's military service. Id. at ¶ 1-5. The decree further provided that a consulting firm would prepare a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to implement the pension division and that the trial court would retain jurisdiction over the QDRO. Id. at ¶ 4-5. When the consultant attempted to draft the QDRO, it determined that it could not draft a QDRO under which the wife would receive direct pension payments from the military because the divorce decree did not specify the wife's share"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d. at ¶ 9. The trial court granted the wife's motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief and made two modifications to the divorce decree. The trial court stated that the marriage term was ten years and that the wife was entitled to receive 15 percent of the husband's retirement benefits each month. Id. at ¶ 12. The husband appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. Id. at ¶ 12-13. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that \"the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the length of the marriage stated in the divorce decree.\" Id. at ¶ 16. The court held that by changing the length of the marriage,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ed at $18,000. Karen was awarded a checking account valued at $125, personal jewelry valued at $2,000, an IRA valued at $80,962.73 and an investment account valued at $2,200. Karen also retained a monthly social security benefit of $1,569.10 and a monthly pension benefit of $419.96. The trial court found that the division of property, \"though not equal,\" was \"equitable\" because the marriage was \"a second marriage for both\" parties and \"a significant portion\" of Daniel's IRA was \"premarital.\" The trial court's August 24, 2018 journal entry, at the conclusion of the section addressing spousal support, states tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebe724df-0aaa-4e26-bdc8-56ab3cac7194","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6329974-6329974","title":"CourtListener opinion 6329974","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1: The trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"69 N.E.3d 664","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: band's military pension based upon a marriage term of six years, representing the period of time the parties had been together during the husband's military service. Id. at ¶ 1-5. The decree further provided that a consulting firm would prepare a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to implement the pension division and that the trial court would retain jurisdiction over the QDRO. Id. at ¶ 4-5. When the consultant attempted to draft the QDRO, it determined that it could not draft a QDRO under which the wife would receive direct pension payments from the military because the divorce decree did not specify the wife's share"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6330478 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Santopadre. Extracted reporter citation: 840 S.W.2d 952. Docket: of Units. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6330478 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rip airfare to Colombia not to exceed $1,000 total. And, under the heading \"D. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT,\" the MSA included this provision: Wife shall comply with provisions A.l(b), A.l(c) as conditions precedent to the entry of the final decree of divorce and QDRO. If she fails to comply with such provisions, this MSA shall be null and void in its entirety. –3– It is undisputed that Wife never appeared in Columbia to sign the required paperwork.1 Nevertheless, she filed a motion to enforce the MSA; Husband opposed the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to enforce and found that \"th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y is resolved in favor of the community estate. Sink, 364 S.W.3d at 345. Wife complains of three specific rulings by the trial court in its division of the community estate: (1) finding the Finca is Husband's separate property; (2) finding Husband's VOYA retirement account should be divided 80% separately to Husband and 20% to the community; and (3) refusing to consider Wife's claim for reimbursement. (A) The Finca In her second issue, Wife argues the trial court erroneously characterized the Finca as Husband's separate property. The Finca was acquired during the marriage and thus is presumptively community property."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Bras's pro rata analysis. First, by attributing all of the growth in Husband's original units to him, Bras ignores the earnings those units generated between the date of the marriage and the date the plan was frozen. Any benefits in a defined contribution pension plan that accrue during the marriage are community property subject to division on divorce. Dewey v. Dewey, 745 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied); see –17– also McClary v. Thompson, 65 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (contributions and interest earned in retirement account during marriage are commun"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60d0a1fe-1492-4c5e-89d9-3352c3933b70","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330478-6330478","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of Units","extracted_reporter_citation":"840 S.W.2d 952","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): third issue, Wife contends that the trial court erred in characterizing the VOYA IRA as 80% Husband's separate property and 20% community property. We agree. Certain facts about the origins of the VOYA IRA are not disputed. American Airlines sponsored a defined contribution retirement plan for its pilots that was –11– known as the \"B Plan.\"4 The company contributed 11% of a pilot's salary each year; employees made no contributions. The B Plan was an investment trust, in which members held \"units\" that represented a fractional ownership in all of the trust's holdings. The plan paid annuities to retired pilots, and to that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6330814 Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Docket: 21-0216. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6330814 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tirement accounts for schools and other exempt organizations). 8 A divorce decree, or a decree of legal separation, revokes the prior Participant's designation, if any, of his/her spouse or former spouse as his/her Beneficiary unless: (a) the decree or a QDRO provides otherwise; or (b) the Employer provides otherwise in an Addendum. This Section 7.05(A)(1) applies solely to a Participant whose divorce or legal separation becomes effective on or after the date the Employer executes this Plan unless the Plan is a Restated Plan and the prior Plan contained a provision to the same effect. The record contains n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. Arising from an interpleader action filed by the University of Dubuque (UD), Sharon Fairchild (Sharon) appeals the district court decision concerning the distribution of employee retirement plan benefits of her former spouse, the late Richard E. Cowart Jr. (Richard).1 Robilyn Cowart (Robilyn) cross-appeals the district court's ruling denying her request for attorney fees. We affirm the district court on both issues. I. Background Facts & Proceedings The following facts are not in dispute. Beginning in January 1998, Richard was employed as a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009). In Kennedy, the Supreme Court \"granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Courts over a divorced spouse's ability to waive pension plan benefits through a divorce decree not amounting to a [qualified domestic relation order].\" 555 U.S. at 291. The Court considered whether a waiver embodied in a divorce decree should be honored by a plan administrator when determining the appropriate recipient of benefits of a former spouse. 555 U.S. at 288. In the relevant decree, the spouse was \""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"691b2eca-b39a-4a6b-b8ca-2568c4f643e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6330814-6330814","title":"CourtListener opinion 6330814","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0216","extracted_reporter_citation":"555 U.S. 285","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: lan administrator, takes no position on the appropriate beneficiary and will distribute the benefits as directed by the court, waiving the filing of a brief on appeal. The plan is subject to and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 2 The beneficiary designation form included specification of Sharon's relationship to Richard: \"Wife.\" 3 Following Richard's death, UD determined Robilyn, as Richard's surviving spouse, was entitled to one-half of the plan benefits pursuant to ERISA provisions requiring a mandatory preretirement death benefit to the surviving spouse of a participan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6334245 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CANDY and TERENCE BONNER. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S.Ct. 577. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6334245 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El 3 In August 2014, Terence appealed the order dividing his pension, which this court addressed in a December"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: uest for spousal support and both of the parties' requests for an award of attorney fees as a sanction under section 271. Among the community property items at issue were: (1) the parties' two real properties; (2) the parties' respective pensions; (3) Candy's retirement account; and (4) the parties' debt. The parties also sought reimbursement for certain payments they made from separate property funds during separation. During the trial, Candy was represented by counsel, and Terence represented himself. In a 46-page statement of decision (the Statement of Decision), the trial court made a series of orders concerning the division"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: trial court entered a judgment of dissolution as to the parties' marital status only. Terence is retired from employment with an agency of the federal government, where he worked from May 1978 until May 2010. Since retirement, Terence has received a federal pension, but he did not share the pension with Candy for the first two years after separation. In July 2014, in response to a request filed by Candy, the trial court ordered Terence to pay Candy half of his pension on a going forward basis.3 A domestic relations order (DRO) was created to implement the division. Terence made direct payments to Candy for her share"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d299f610-0835-4317-90fd-cfe18d023756","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6334245-6334245","title":"CourtListener opinion 6334245","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"137 S.Ct. 577","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: on to set aside the judgment, as Terence did not establish that the judgment concerning the QDRO for Candy's pension was contrary either to the law or to the facts presented at trial. L. Terence's Challenge to the Order Regarding the Payments to Preserve the Survivor Annuity Benefit in Terence's Pension Terence's pension includes a survivor annuity benefit that will be paid to Candy upon Terence's death. As a premium for that benefit, the pension administrator deducts a monthly amount from Terence's pension disbursement. (5 U.S.C. § 8339(j)(1), (4).) The trial court ordered that as of the date it issued the judgment, Candy wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6335438 Extracted reporter citation: 184 A.3d 168. Docket: 316 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6335438 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: (1) divide the FedEx pension and FedEx -3- J-A22013-21 sponsored 401(k) accounts on the same 55%-45% basis in favor of Wife; and since the estate was insufficient for an immediate offset, (2) cooperate in the preparation, and equally divide the cost, of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\") for the distribution of both assets. See Special Master's Report and Recommendation, 9/8/20, at 22-23. As to this deferred distribution, the special master noted that \"The value of the account[s] for purposes of this distribution shall be determined as of the date of distribution.\" Id. Husband and Wife both timely filed exceptions to the spe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: wn employment. Prior to separation, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1, 2019. The mar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ration, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1, 2019. The marital home has an appr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c28046e-8a82-42a2-bdd2-60cc684fe2ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6335438-6335438","title":"CourtListener opinion 6335438","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"316 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"184 A.3d 168","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): her own employment. Prior to separation, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6337686 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6337686 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff's Office as a corrections officer. In the dissolution judgment, Former Wife was awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $1,700 per month, as well as a portion of Former Husband's retirement funds to be distributed when he \"actually retired by means of a QDRO.\" At the time the dissolution judgment was entered, Former Wife's share of Former Husband's retirement fund was worth $236,500. When Former Husband retired several years later, the value of Former Wife's share of the retirement funds had increased to $352,283.08. In 2016, Former Husband filed a petition to modify or terminate alimony (\"Modification Petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: evidence, reflected $7,634 in total monthly expenses and included expenses relating to the new wife and her children. Former Husband testified that in order to meet his monthly expenses, he had to withdraw a minimum of approximately $3,500 per month from his retirement account. Former Wife, in turn, testified she received $352,283 as her share of Former Husband's retirement assets in December 2015. Former Wife used a portion of the money to purchase a new car and an annuity and to pay certain bills, and put the remainder of the money in an IRA investment account. As of the time of trial, Former Wife's annuity and IRA investment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 4th DCA 2009). In Kitchens, we held that the trial court erred by treating the former husband's discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony, reasoning: Our decision is premised upon the differences between a defined-benefit pension plan and an IRA. The typical defined- benefit pension plan provides a fixed monthly payment and prohibits the beneficiary from invading the principal or varying the amount of the monthly payment. By contrast, an IRA's principal is available for immediate withdrawal and the amounts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as inc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ebb4e28-ca5c-43cd-8542-22a345f27f99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6337686-6337686","title":"CourtListener opinion 6337686","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony forces the owner to deplete the account at a faster rate and deprives the owner of the full use of an asset which, presumably, was subject to equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. Cf. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a spouse should not be required to liquidate her assets to pay for her support). Id. In comparing discretionary withdrawals to mandatory withdrawals, we held that \"mandatory or minimum IRA withdrawals are properly treated as income for purposes of calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fef653dd-87e6-4587-9f83-f94d2638b6af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450","title":"CourtListener opinion 6338450","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1308 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6338450 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1308 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6338450 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fef653dd-87e6-4587-9f83-f94d2638b6af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450","title":"CourtListener opinion 6338450","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1308 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fef653dd-87e6-4587-9f83-f94d2638b6af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6338450-6338450","title":"CourtListener opinion 6338450","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1308 MDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: oncealing his income to the detriment of the parties' minor child. As she did in her Rule 1925(b) statement, she asks this Court to consider the fees reimbursable pursuant to statutory authority and interpreting jurisprudence acknowledging the fluidity of domestic relations orders such as those awarding child support. In child support matters involving an award of attorneys' fees, our standard of appellate review is for an abuse of discretion. Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830, 834 (Pa. 2002); Krebs v. Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178, 1180 (Pa. Super. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs when there is a misapplication of the law or an unreaso"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6341398 Extracted case name: CHRISTOFF v. CHRISTOFF. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6341398 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: was no longer accounted for in the PSA. Both parties finalized and signed the final PSA, it was incorporated into the decree, and a third-party attorney began preparing a qualified domestic 2 CHRISTOFF v. CHRISTOFF Decision of the Court relations order (\"QDRO\") to divide the value of the retirement accounts. The third-party attorney realized the MPPP was not expressly listed in the PSA and emailed both Husband and Wife to inquire whether it should be included in the QDRO. Wife claimed the MPPP was to be included and equally divided between the parties. Husband, however, claimed the MPPP was not expressly listed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nn Christoff (\"Wife\") were married for thirty-three years before Husband filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The parties have several retirement accounts, which were listed in the PSA under sections 4(C) Defined Contribution Retirement Accounts and 4(D) Defined Benefit Plans (pensions). Section 4(D) noted that Husband had two pensions, including one through his current employer, UPS. ¶4 Following mediation, Husband's counsel sent a draft of the PSA to be approved by Wife's counsel. Wife provided several re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 David Michael Christoff (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's ruling ordering the equal division of Husband's UPS/IPA Money Purchase Pension Plan account (\"MPPP\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Sherry Lynn Christoff (\"Wife\") were married for thirty-three years before Husband filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92e8cb60-430c-493d-86df-0abceaec1e2f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6341398-6341398","title":"CourtListener opinion 6341398","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nd filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The parties have several retirement accounts, which were listed in the PSA under sections 4(C) Defined Contribution Retirement Accounts and 4(D) Defined Benefit Plans (pensions). Section 4(D) noted that Husband had two pensions, including one through his current employer, UPS. ¶4 Following mediation, Husband's counsel sent a draft of the PSA to be approved by Wife's counsel. Wife provided several redlined edits, including one pertaining to section 4(C). In the draft, Hu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6343228 Extracted reporter citation: 573 S.W.2d 181. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6343228 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: expired, trial court may not modify, alter, or change property division); Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140 (Tex. 2018) (divorce decree awarded husband and wife half interests in husband's retirement accounts, which was effectuated through unchallenged qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), but wife later obtained additional QDRO assigning wife additional interests in retirement accounts; supreme court invalidated new QDRO because it \"created a new division to enforce Bart's spousal-support obligation\" and thus violated family code); Everett v. Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (although trial court bel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n or subject to her sole control; a 2009 Toyota Prius; the funds contained in three bank accounts; all sums related to financial plans \"existing by reason of [Valerie's] past, present or future employment,\" including her veterinary clinic; all of Douglas's retirement benefits arising from his publishing company; retirement accounts and life insurance benefits in Valerie's name; one of Douglas's individual retirement accounts (IRA); and all of two investment accounts and half of a third. Douglas was awarded eleven parcels of real estate; household items, collectibles, appliances, equipment, clothing, and other possessions in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rial court may not modify, alter, or change property division); Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140 (Tex. 2018) (divorce decree awarded husband and wife half interests in husband's retirement accounts, which was effectuated through unchallenged qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), but wife later obtained additional QDRO assigning wife additional interests in retirement accounts; supreme court invalidated new QDRO because it \"created a new division to enforce Bart's spousal-support obligation\" and thus violated family code); Everett v. Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (although trial court bel"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74fa9851-1adc-4a9e-b1b5-ddcd5f8ae3f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343228-6343228","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"573 S.W.2d 181","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: reated to hold his inheritance proceeds; • that the third investment account awarded to Valerie should be split evenly between the parties; • that Valerie be required to account for and split with Douglas the airline miles accumulated by the spending of community property and that existed when the parties split or were divorced, whichever was greater; and • that he should not be ordered to name Valerie as a life-insurance beneficiary because the policy had been bought for him by his parents. Douglas sought further modification under the decree's undisclosed-assets provision—which states that such assets are \"subject to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6343790 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT E. STEPANIAK AND JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK Upon the Petition of KURT E. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 21-0726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6343790 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 252, 254–55 (Iowa 1996) (en banc)). 3 Jacqueline planned to return to graduate school to earn a master's degree in public administration, which she anticipated completing by her fifty-eighth birthday in October 2014. 4 In January 2009, Kurt moved to enter qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) on the divided pension plans. The court ordered the plan administrators to split the funds and award Jacqueline her share as an alternate payee. Her share was to be awarded as her sole and separate property. The court entered QDROs for the KONE pension plans in February 2009. Meanwhile, Kurt appealed the decree, and Jacqueline cross appealed."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: de further alimony, even if he is financially capable.\" Id. Kurt retired in 2019. In April 2020, KONE notified Jacqueline that Kurt's pensions would be paid out to her in lump sums. Her share of the pension relevant here (KONE, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Defined Benefit SERP)) was $85,113.23 (minus $2000.16 in FICA taxes). KONE estimated that the actuarial equivalent monthly single life annuity benefit would have been $411.84. Jacqueline received the lump sum by wire transfer in August 2020. That same month, Kurt stopped paying support—reasoning his obligation was 5 suspended until May 2023 because"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the decree. The court ruled in Kurt's favor, giving him \"credit\" for the lump- sum payment against his spousal support obligation. Because we strive to give effect to the decree, we agree with the district court's sentiment that given the payout under the pension's terms, we can't \"put the genie back in the bottle.\" By our reading, the decree and our decision intended for proceeds from the pension to offset Kurt's support obligation. And the district court's ruling honors that intent. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings Kurt and Jacqueline divorced in 2008 after twenty-six years of marriage. During their marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80717df8-8b7b-4b55-8101-8e90d746dd52","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6343790-6343790","title":"CourtListener opinion 6343790","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0726","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): el why her share was paid in a lump sum, they said the plan underwent changes after entry of the QDRO. According to KONE, the QDRO applied to the then-existing plan, The KONE, Inc. Defined Benefit SERP. That plan was split into two plans: (1) the KONE Inc. 401(k) Defined Contribution Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (DC SERP) and (2) DB SERP. The DC SERP plan was payable as a lump sum, to which Jacqueline raises no objection. The DB SERP is not a tax-qualified retirement plan but one that is \"exempt from most portions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and instead subject to special"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6345584 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Goldberg. Extracted reporter citation: 210 Cal.App.4th 1423. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6345584 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lue of Farmers acct XX8131 valued at $26,859 (Jun. 3, 2020, B295880), from which portions of the facts and procedural history are taken. 3 4. 1/2 of Pet's Deferred Comp Plan with current value of $7,858 5. Pet's S.P. and C.P. portion of his 401K Plan per QDRO[4] to be prepared by Nancy Bunn, Atty, using DOS of 9/29/2015 6. Marriott timeshare XX5190 at value of $2,750 7. Mercedes SLK 320 at value of $3,324 8. Household items attached hereto at 0 value. Respondent shall receive the following items: 1. 6333 E. Colorado Street, Long Beach, CA with est FMV net $854,530. 2. 1/2 of items # 2-4 inclusive set fort"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: were subject to confirmation; Patricia reserved the right to review and verify the documents and amounts of all accounts; the exact amounts of an equalization payment had not been calculated; a Propertizer had not been prepared; and the tax impact division of retirement benefits under the QDRO had not yet been calculated by attorney Nancy Bunn, as the MSA provided. The MSA's terms were not uncertain simply because verifications and calculations had yet to be performed. The MSA set forth the percentages that each of the parties would receive from each of the accounts and/or items of property identified. Those percentages were fixe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1/2 of DoS value of Farmers acct XX8131 valued at $26,859 (Jun. 3, 2020, B295880), from which portions of the facts and procedural history are taken. 3 4. 1/2 of Pet's Deferred Comp Plan with current value of $7,858 5. Pet's S.P. and C.P. portion of his 401K Plan per QDRO[4] to be prepared by Nancy Bunn, Atty, using DOS of 9/29/2015 6. Marriott timeshare XX5190 at value of $2,750 7. Mercedes SLK 320 at value of $3,324 8. Household items attached hereto at 0 value. Respondent shall receive the following items: 1. 6333 E. Colorado Street, Long Beach, CA with est FMV net $854,530. 2. 1/2 of items # 2-4 incl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8a7b92d8-b319-4ec9-aef9-83224fb01f94","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6345584-6345584","title":"CourtListener opinion 6345584","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"210 Cal.App.4th 1423","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: fe Patricia Ann Welch (Patricia) entered into after separation and in anticipation of dissolution of their marriage is a \"complete property settlement\" within the meaning of section 145, which operates as a statutory waiver of certain of Freeman's rights as a surviving spouse enumerated in section 141, including the right to inherit from Patricia and to be appointed as the personal representative of her estate.2 We reverse the probate court's orders and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 The Family Court Action In September 2015, after 36 years of marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6346091 Extracted case name: MILHAM v. MILHAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6346091 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Mark Milham (\"Husband\") appeals a judgment for Sandra Lynn Woll (\"Wife\"), formerly Milham, dividing Husband's military retirement benefits. For the reasons stated below, we exercise special action jurisdiction but deny relief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The parties' 1998 dissolution decree awarded Wife 32.43% of Husband's military retirement benefits if and when he \"retires from active duty in the United States Air Force.\" The decree did not order Husband to directly pay Wife her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , by ordering Husband to return her separate property, Rule 85 does not apply to the judgment. ¶12 Husband's analogy to Quijada v. Quijada also misses the mark. 246 Ariz. 217 (App. 2019). In Quijada, the decree provided that the wife's share of the community pension benefits would be paid at the same time and in the same manner as the husband's. Id. at 219, ¶ 3. The wife petitioned to modify the decree and force the husband pay her directly because he chose to continue working past his eligible retirement date. Id. at ¶ 4. In Quijada, we held that because the wife agreed to the payment provision in the decree, the cour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 43% of Husband's military retirement benefits if and when he \"retires from active duty in the United States Air Force.\" The decree did not order Husband to directly pay Wife her share of his retirement benefits, and the parties did not stipulate to entry of a domestic relations order. In 2016, as Husband's retirement date approached, Wife contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (\"DFAS\"), the entity responsible for administering military retirement benefits, about receiving direct payments. In April 2020, DFAS approved her application for direct payments. DFAS reversed its decision two months later and denied Wife's claim, b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a40b4507-b4ad-4bb4-ad4d-ac0e9a9dca12","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346091-6346091","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346091","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ion of an existing decree de novo. Cohen v. Frey, 215 Ariz. 62, 66, ¶ 10 (App. 2007). ¶9 Wife possessed an immediate and vested interest in her share of the retirement benefits upon entry of the decree. See Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181 (1986) (when community property is divided at dissolution, each spouse receives \"an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest in the property awarded to him or her by the trial court\"). The decree entitles Wife to her share of the retirement benefits \"if and when\" Husband retires. Contrary to Husband's contention, the failure to enter a domestic relations order at the time"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6346131 Extracted reporter citation: 209 A.3d 367. Docket: 1102 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6346131 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as well as their opportunities for future acquisitions of assets and income. See id. at 1-4. The master recommended a 50-50 division of the marital estate with Mr. Yeager to pay $110,878 to Ms. Yeager by the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").1 See id. at 4-6. The master found that the value of the Adamsville home increased by $51,000 during the marriage. See id. at 2, 4. Additionally, the master determined that Mr. Yeager had a loan or line of credit with Greenville Savings (\"the Greenville Savings debt\") with a balance of $6,894 when the parties separated. See id. at 5. Ms. Yeager ti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: er with limited liquid assets and limited time - 10 - J-S07020-22 to purchase a new home,8 while Mr. Yeager enjoyed possession of real property that he brought into the marriage, including the Adamsville home and a family campground, as well as a larger retirement account. See id. at 30-31. The trial court denied Ms. Yeager's exception challenging the lack of liquid assets. The court determined that there were few liquid assets for distribution and that the master's report properly analyzed the section 3502(a) factors. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/21, at 4. The court cited the master's findings that the parties were"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: distribution scheme.3 See Exceptions, 11/23/20, at ____________________________________________ 1 \"A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under [a pension] plan.\" Conway v. Conway, 209 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations, italics, and quotation marks omitted). 2 The trial court, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, requests a remand for a recalculation of the increase in the value of the Adamsville home. 3 Ms. Yeager was not clear in her reference to liquid assets in her exceptions. However, she"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bed09379-78d9-45dd-9357-df19ea1019a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6346131-6346131","title":"CourtListener opinion 6346131","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1102 WDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ons to the master's report which erred in failing to equitably divide marital assets in a manner to achieve economic justice. Ms. Yeager's Brief at 7-8 (renumbered and unnecessary capitalization omitted).4 Ms. Yeager's issues challenge the trial court's equitable distribution of the marital estate. Our standard of review in assessing the propriety of the trial court's equitable distribution award is whether the court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure. ____________________________________________ she asserted that a 60-40 equitable distribution was more appropriate and so"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e0c899b-6a97-41c9-9797-29f47a010237","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916","title":"CourtListener opinion 6347916","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6347916 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6347916 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e0c899b-6a97-41c9-9797-29f47a010237","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916","title":"CourtListener opinion 6347916","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e0c899b-6a97-41c9-9797-29f47a010237","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916","title":"CourtListener opinion 6347916","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: irm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The former husband and wife were married in 1985. The parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to cer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e0c899b-6a97-41c9-9797-29f47a010237","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916","title":"CourtListener opinion 6347916","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: TUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The former husband and wife were married in 1985. The parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to cer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e0c899b-6a97-41c9-9797-29f47a010237","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6347916-6347916","title":"CourtListener opinion 6347916","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to certain provisions in the MSA and QDRO regarding survivorship benefits upon his death."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6348138 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Salviola. Docket: 2-21-0466 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6348138 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at the trial court did not err when it awarded Elena only a portion of the attorney fees she requested. Therefore, we affirm. ¶2 Petitioner, Elena Shtern Pindiak, and respondent, Joseph M. Pindiak, engaged in post- decree litigation regarding the entry of Qualified Domestic Relation Orders and attorney fees relating to the entry of those orders. Elena appeals the trial court's ruling awarding her part of the attorney fees she requested under section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508(b) (West 2020)). She alternatively argues that the trial court 2022 IL App (2d) 210466-U erred in granti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: provided that Joseph was to pay maintenance to Elena of $1552.58 per month until March 4, 2022, based on his \"base income\" of $81,000 and her \"base income\" of $23,000. He was also to pay child support of $515 per month. The MSA further listed Joseph's four retirement accounts, which included his Allstate 401k. As pertinent here, the MSA provided: \"The parties agree that following the entry of this Order, ELENA shall be awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of the all [sic] of JOSEPH'S retirement accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ena of $1552.58 per month until March 4, 2022, based on his \"base income\" of $81,000 and her \"base income\" of $23,000. He was also to pay child support of $515 per month. The MSA further listed Joseph's four retirement accounts, which included his Allstate 401k. As pertinent here, the MSA provided: \"The parties agree that following the entry of this Order, ELENA shall be awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of the all [sic] of JOSEPH'S retirement accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined as the balance of the accounts as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"60403f54-a4fe-423a-ac6a-8f3750accfad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6348138-6348138","title":"CourtListener opinion 6348138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0466 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ment accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined as the balance of the accounts as of the date of marriage. *** The parties shall cooperate in executing and entering a proper Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) *** [and] shall begin the process to execute the QDRO within sixty (60) days from the entry of this Agreement and shall share equally (50/50) any and all costs, including legal fees, associated in drafting, executing and filing of said QDRO by WFA Econometrics.\" (Emphasis added.) ¶5 On March 3, 2020, Joseph filed a motion for the entry of QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6350709 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6350709 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eath.\" Pl.'s Resp. MTD at 8. Plaintiff avers if \"money presently due\" is required to establish jurisdiction, plaintiff has a \"present right in the continued annuity.\" Id. Thus, plaintiff alleges she is \"not asking for a determination of her status in a future retirement benefit that she [is] not currently collecting,\" rather she is \"presently asking the court for money now as the security interest in the SBP beneficiary [that] requires perfection now.\" Id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff alleges she has a \"right to current compensation under the Amended Final Decree of Divorce pursuant to the money mandating statute Uniformed Services Former S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y, which requires an express election by the annuitant to provide a former spouse with benefits.\" (citing 10 U.S.C. §§ 1448(b), (d)(3)). In Woll, this court found although the plaintiff's divorce decree recited a right of survivorship in the military member's pension, and that right could refer only to SBP benefits, the designation did not expressly entitle her to SBP benefits or require the military member to make the election for her. Id. at 374–76. The plaintiff in Woll brought her claim after the military member had passed away. Id. at 373. -3- ECF No. 14. On 16 February 2022, the Court granted plaintiff's motion"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: entered into a Marriage Settlement Agreement (\"MSA\"). Id. The MSA stated plaintiff would receive \"1/2 of the community portion of [Col. Leveille's] USAF retirement with right of survivorship.\" Id. In 2008, the final divorce decree incorporated the MSA into a Domestic Relations Order (\"DRO\"), which the court later amended to state plaintiff \"has the option of exercising her right of survivorship.\" Id.; Gov't MTD App. at 10–11 (4 May 2021 DOHA Reconsideration Decision). In December 2008, plaintiff mailed DFAS copies of the amended DRO, final decree of divorce, and later, copies of the MSA. Gov't MTD App. at 2 (10 Feb. 2021 DOHA Appeal De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74d53d78-7c6f-4e80-a60f-e4b382e93e77","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350709-6350709","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350709","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ey General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, all of Washington, D.C., for the defendant. ORDER HOLTE, Judge. Pro se plaintiff Marrita Murphy filed a complaint appealing the denial of her election for former spouse survivor benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan (\"SBP\") by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (\"DFAS\") and the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (\"DOHA\"). The government moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. For the following reasons, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6350808 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6350808 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff's Office as a corrections officer. In the dissolution judgment, Former Wife was awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $1,700 per month, as well as a portion of Former Husband's retirement funds to be distributed when he \"actually retired by means of a QDRO.\" At the time the dissolution judgment was entered, Former Wife's share of Former Husband's retirement fund was worth $236,500. When Former Husband retired several years later, the value of Former Wife's share of the retirement funds had increased to $352,283.08. In 2016, Former Husband filed a petition to modify or terminate alimony (\"Modification Petiti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: evidence, reflected $7,634 in total monthly expenses and included expenses relating to the new wife and her children. Former Husband testified that in order to meet his monthly expenses, he had to withdraw a minimum of approximately $3,500 per month from his retirement account. Former Wife, in turn, testified she received $352,283 as her share of Former Husband's retirement assets in December 2015. Former Wife used a portion of the money to purchase a new car and an annuity and to pay certain bills, and put the remainder of the money in an IRA investment account. As of the time of trial, Former Wife's annuity and IRA investment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 4th DCA 2009). In Kitchens, we held that the trial court erred by treating the former husband's discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony, reasoning: Our decision is premised upon the differences between a defined-benefit pension plan and an IRA. The typical defined- benefit pension plan provides a fixed monthly payment and prohibits the beneficiary from invading the principal or varying the amount of the monthly payment. By contrast, an IRA's principal is available for immediate withdrawal and the amounts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as inc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f87f43c2-fa43-40a4-bda0-dbe6779db900","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6350808-6350808","title":"CourtListener opinion 6350808","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony forces the owner to deplete the account at a faster rate and deprives the owner of the full use of an asset which, presumably, was subject to equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. Cf. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a spouse should not be required to liquidate her assets to pay for her support). Id. In comparing discretionary withdrawals to mandatory withdrawals, we held that \"mandatory or minimum IRA withdrawals are properly treated as income for purposes of calcu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6351031 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moore. Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6351031 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: se to make certain filing deadlines in the Labor Code jurisdictional with unequivocal language.\") (citations omitted). The absence of any such language anywhere in Subchapter C is particularly conspicuous. After all, its immediate neighbor— Subchapter B, for qualified domestic relations orders—is unambiguous: \"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment or another final order 19 The Government Code supplies one reason that the legislature so readily uses the language of exclusivity in the Family Code. In § 24.601, the Government Code authorizes \"family district court[s],\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: roperty division when divorce decree had mischaracterized separate property as community property); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003) (res judicata prevents relitigating property division even though the divorce decree had improperly divided retirement benefits). 17 Notably, the agreement incident to divorce incorporated into the divorce decree is not even in the record before us. We need not—indeed should not—speculate or prejudge any merits issue that is properly left in the first instance to the district court on remand. Such issues include the final characterization of S.C.'s and M.B.'s respective interests"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: certain filing deadlines in the Labor Code jurisdictional with unequivocal language.\") (citations omitted). The absence of any such language anywhere in Subchapter C is particularly conspicuous. After all, its immediate neighbor— Subchapter B, for qualified domestic relations orders—is unambiguous: \"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment or another final order 19 The Government Code supplies one reason that the legislature so readily uses the language of exclusivity in the Family Code. In § 24.601, the Government Code authorizes \"family district court[s],\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7489ace-2370-47bc-b748-f9ddf552241b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351031-6351031","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351031","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"133 S.W.3d 217","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: stice Hecht, Justice Lehrmann, Justice Devine, Justice Blacklock, and Justice Huddle joined. JUSTICE BLAND filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Boyd and Justice Busby joined. One principal function of a final divorce decree is to divide a couple's community property. Sometimes, however, the decree may not divide all the community property. When that happens, it stops being community property because the marriage has ended. But both spouses continue to own it as tenants in common, just as they could jointly own property with anyone else. Any tenant in common who wishes to divide property may seek a partition under Prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6351763 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MELINDA and JOHN F. SHEGA. Extracted reporter citation: 37 Cal.3d 762. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6351763 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , the parties went to a hearing on Wife's RFO on July 1, 2020. Judge Howatt granted Wife's RFO and ordered payment of arrears be made from the 401(k) account. Wife received a check for the arrears, totaling $60,000, in October 2020. Judge Howatt also issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to allow Husband to pay further spousal support from the 401(k) account. But, according to Husband, Wife's attorney erred in drafting the QDRO and caused a delay in payments for July and August. In September 2020, Wife filed an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit of Contempt, alleging Husband was in contempt of court for failure to pay five months of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and approximately $15 million of assets in real and personal property. She claimed monthly expenses of $11,631. She further reported that, as of February 27, 2021, she had paid over $107,000 in attorney fees, of which $50,000 was paid from \"[w]ithdrawals from pension allowed by [the] court.\" Wife owed an additional $8,948 in attorney fees. Husband reported on his IED approximately $33,667 in monthly income, consisting of salary or wages, pension payments, social security retirement, investment income, and pass-through income as the owner and sole proprietor of an S corporation. The investment income included approximat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): properties. In October 2019, Judge Howatt ordered Husband to pay spousal support to Wife in the monthly amount of $12,500. In January 2020, Husband advised Wife, through their respective attorneys, that he would be paying the monthly spousal support from his 401(k) account, with the issue of allocation reserved for trial. According to Husband, both his and Wife's 401(k) accounts were managed by BNY Melon at that time. Husband then transferred his portion of the 401(k) accounts to Fidelity Investments (the 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 401(k) account). He notified Wife's a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a053add3-2960-463a-b1a5-74aac00ca147","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6351763-6351763","title":"CourtListener opinion 6351763","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"37 Cal.3d 762","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ies went to a hearing on Wife's RFO on July 1, 2020. Judge Howatt granted Wife's RFO and ordered payment of arrears be made from the 401(k) account. Wife received a check for the arrears, totaling $60,000, in October 2020. Judge Howatt also issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to allow Husband to pay further spousal support from the 401(k) account. But, according to Husband, Wife's attorney erred in drafting the QDRO and caused a delay in payments for July and August. In September 2020, Wife filed an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit of Contempt, alleging Husband was in contempt of court for failure to pay five months of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50c32315-5f12-4aef-bedb-0e988007e80c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405","title":"CourtListener opinion 6353405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"711 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6353405 Extracted reporter citation: 711 S.W.2d 230. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6353405 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50c32315-5f12-4aef-bedb-0e988007e80c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405","title":"CourtListener opinion 6353405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"711 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50c32315-5f12-4aef-bedb-0e988007e80c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405","title":"CourtListener opinion 6353405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"711 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: which included Exhibit 1, a Final Decree that contains the exact language from the December 2019 Final Decree regarding spousal maintenance; however, Robert did not sign Exhibit 1. The same day Robert approved the January 2020 Nunc Order, Robert signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which he approved and 3 consented as to both form and substance. The record shows that on January 24, 2020, the trial court sent Robert notice that it had signed and filed the January 2020 Nunc Order. In February 2020, the trial court entered an Amended Income Withholding for Support. In August 2020, Robert filed a Motion for Further Orders or Moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50c32315-5f12-4aef-bedb-0e988007e80c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405","title":"CourtListener opinion 6353405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"711 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cluded Exhibit 1, a Final Decree that contains the exact language from the December 2019 Final Decree regarding spousal maintenance; however, Robert did not sign Exhibit 1. The same day Robert approved the January 2020 Nunc Order, Robert signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which he approved and 3 consented as to both form and substance. The record shows that on January 24, 2020, the trial court sent Robert notice that it had signed and filed the January 2020 Nunc Order. In February 2020, the trial court entered an Amended Income Withholding for Support. In August 2020, Robert filed a Motion for Further Orders or Moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"50c32315-5f12-4aef-bedb-0e988007e80c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6353405-6353405","title":"CourtListener opinion 6353405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"711 S.W.2d 230","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: tions to Amy's motion, arguing that he did not sign the decree or agree to its terms. Robert also filed a Second Amended Motion for Further Orders or Motion to Modify Prior Orders, in which he argued that Amy's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc changed the property division in the December 2019 Final Decree and the modified proposed decree was never signed by the trial court or the parties. According to Robert, there is no written agreement or contractual agreement between him and Amy that requires him to pay spousal maintenance, and the modified proposed decree should not be entered because it ordered him to pay spousal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb1b1f11-ea30-4262-a286-19e1fe4a10be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495445","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6495445 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6495445 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb1b1f11-ea30-4262-a286-19e1fe4a10be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495445","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb1b1f11-ea30-4262-a286-19e1fe4a10be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495445-6495445","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495445","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s due to an alleged altercation between defendant and his ex- girlfriend, Brenda F. That same day, the prosecution filed a complaint in case No. CR62118 (domestic violence case), charging defendant with causing corporal injury to a cohabitant and disobeying a domestic relations order.2 On September 1, defendant was 1 All further date references are to 2020 unless otherwise specified. 2 In the battery case, defendant was ordered to not annoy, harass, molest, attack, strike, or sexually batter Brenda F. -- the same alleged victim in the domestic violence case. 2 arraigned on the petition to revoke probation in the battery and firearm"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6495459 Extracted reporter citation: 156 N.E.3d 932. Docket: indicating that the clerk served it on him. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6495459 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1 as ordered by the divorce decree. {¶3} In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System \"shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] if/when the law changes.\" {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\"), to abide by the terms of a state court's divorce decree providing for federal retirement benefits to be paid to a former spouse. 5 U.S.C. 8461, 8345(j)("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tions order] if/when the law changes.\" {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\"), to abide by the terms of a state court's divorce decree providing for federal retirement benefits to be paid to a former spouse. 5 U.S.C. 8461, 8345(j)(1). See also 5 C.F.R. 838.101(a)(1); 57 Fed.Reg. 33570, 33575 (eff. Aug. 28, 1992). OPM's regulations require a former spouse seeking eligibility for a court-awarded portion of a federal employee's retirement benefits to submit \"[a] certified copy of the court order acceptable for processing [‘COAP'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: locating to the Washington, D.C. area. Julia lived in the marital home on Townline Road until the Ostaneks sold it in late 2001 as ordered by the divorce decree. {¶3} In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System \"shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] if/when the law changes.\" {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management (\"OPM\"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\"), to abide by the terms of a st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb3fa8a4-bd6d-4051-a8c9-8ca522b3ecfa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6495459-6495459","title":"CourtListener opinion 6495459","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"indicating that the clerk served it on him","extracted_reporter_citation":"156 N.E.3d 932","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: riage (from February 25, 1978 to April 23, 2001) and the denominator of which is the total number of months of the Employee's Creditable Service accrued under the Federal Employees Retirement System.\" The proposed order also required OPM to provide Julia a survivor annuity \"equal to a pro-rata share\" and for Julia and Gregory to divide equally the costs of that annuity. {¶7} The trial court adopted and signed the order, and the clerk filed it on January 22, 2013. The court did not direct the clerk to serve the order on Gregory, nor is there an entry on the docket indicating that the clerk served it on him. {¶8} Gregor"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6496824 Docket: 21CA011774 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6496824 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order, except for part of one of the 401ks, which Husband was awarded as an offset for some real estate equity that Wife received. The court also granted Husband the UBS and Fidelity investment accounts as an offset against the real estate. The court awarded Wife half of the shares from Husband's former employer. The court did not indicate how Husband's 1538"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d was working for a large company where his salary was $275,000 with the possibility that he might receive additional salary bonuses, stock grants, or stock options. {¶3} Following the divorce hearing, the trial court found that Husband had multiple 401K retirement accounts from his current and past employers, investment accounts with UBS and 2 Fidelity, stock of a former employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): usband was working for a large company where his salary was $275,000 with the possibility that he might receive additional salary bonuses, stock grants, or stock options. {¶3} Following the divorce hearing, the trial court found that Husband had multiple 401K retirement accounts from his current and past employers, investment accounts with UBS and 2 Fidelity, stock of a former employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d83f9c06-3107-431d-9c01-4f31995db66f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6496824-6496824","title":"CourtListener opinion 6496824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011774 Appellant v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order, except for part of one of the 401ks, which Husband was awarded as an offset for some real estate equity that Wife received. The court also granted Husband the UBS and Fidelity investment accounts as an offset against the real estate. The court awarded Wife half of the shares from Husband's former employer. The court did not indicate how Husband's 1538"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6498560 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Barthold. Extracted reporter citation: 197 Cal.App.4th 1573. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6498560 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ities or is a generally applicable criminal law\"].) 9 Section 14.01(b) of the PSP's Basic Plan document provides exceptions to the general rule, that are not relevant here, and that are in accordance with cited provisions of the United States Code involving Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, federal tax levies, actions to recover benefit overpayments, and settlements between the participant and the Secretary of Labor or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 20 We do not need to decide the extent to which ERISA preempts the California Enforcement of Judgments Law because there is no conflict between federal and state law here. As discus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: December 2019, Coastline JX Holdings LLC (Coastline), assignee of a judgment creditor's interest in a money judgment entered against Stephen H. Bennett, served on Seamount Financial Group, Inc. (Seamount) a notice of levy on Bennett's assets in an individual retirement account and a profit-sharing plan. After the trial court ordered Seamount to liquidate Bennett's interest in both assets and turn them over to the levying officer to be delivered to Coastline, Bennett filed a motion for reconsideration of 1 the trial court's order, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In his motion, Bennett first argued to the trial court t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: eferences are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. 2 hold, as a matter of first impression, that the profit-sharing plan here was automatically exempt from levy under both ERISA and California law because (1) it is an ERISA- compliant pension plan which is not assignable as a matter of federal law (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1)); and (2) under California's Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.), property that is not assignable is not subject to California's enforcement of judgment procedures and is thus automatically exempt from levy. (See §§ 695.030, 704.210.) There is no conflict, therefore"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ede14f4-d711-40ce-a831-a1c23aa9a322","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6498560-6498560","title":"CourtListener opinion 6498560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"197 Cal.App.4th 1573","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: al court's order, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In his motion, Bennett first argued to the trial court that the profit-sharing plan was protected from levy because it qualified as a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). He also filed a motion to tax costs. The trial court denied Bennett's motion, but informed the parties that, under its inherent authority, it would reconsider its prior order regarding the distribution of the profit-sharing plan only (not the individual retirement account) because the court previously had not considered the impl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"490c6a53-fdfc-4895-9324-7b09ac3738ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800535","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6800535 Extracted case name: LLC v. FI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6800535 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"490c6a53-fdfc-4895-9324-7b09ac3738ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800535","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"490c6a53-fdfc-4895-9324-7b09ac3738ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800535","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ovided that the wife would receive \"[t]he sum of $725,000, which -7- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) shall be transferred to the Wife (or her directed retirement account) from the Husband's Fidelity Investments IRA/SEP account *** pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" Id. at 655. The Carrier court found that the plain language of the MSA was not ambiguous and expressly stated that a total sum of $725,000 must be transferred from the husband's IRA account to the wife. Id. at 658. The MSA did not indicate that the wife's award from the IRA was to be based on a percentage of the account balance or affected by subseque"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"490c6a53-fdfc-4895-9324-7b09ac3738ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800535","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: controlled the asset or liability; whether the asset or liability was marital or non- marital property; the value of the asset or liability; the assets awarded to Kenneth, the assets awarded to Jessica; and notes. The MSA allocated the parties' real estate, retirement accounts, bank accounts, vehicles, frequent-flyer airline mileage, and other personal property. 1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. -2- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) ¶8 Article IV of the MSA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"490c6a53-fdfc-4895-9324-7b09ac3738ca","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800535-6800535","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800535","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t the wife would receive \"[t]he sum of $725,000, which -7- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) shall be transferred to the Wife (or her directed retirement account) from the Husband's Fidelity Investments IRA/SEP account *** pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.\" Id. at 655. The Carrier court found that the plain language of the MSA was not ambiguous and expressly stated that a total sum of $725,000 must be transferred from the husband's IRA account to the wife. Id. at 658. The MSA did not indicate that the wife's award from the IRA was to be based on a percentage of the account balance or affected by subseque"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 6800574 Docket: 356764 Charlevoix Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6800574 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interviewed the daughter but did not divulge her wishes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: red the preference of the daughter,4 and awarded primary physical custody to plaintiff. It referred the child support calculation to the Friend of the Court (FOC). The trial court then considered the parties' assets, the valuations, the marital debts, and the retirement accounts. After reviewing the factors to consider in rendering a property division, the trial court awarded plaintiff the marital home and delineated the terms for removal of defendant's interest. It also concluded that the lack of liquid assets warranted an award of $2,800 in monthly spousal support to plaintiff for 48 months. The trial court ordered that defendan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rt ordered that defendant be held responsible for attorney fees as marital debt for failing to cooperate in good faith throughout the litigation, violating the court's restraining order, and engaging in furtive behavior pertaining to separate accounts and the pension evaluation. Defendant moved for reconsideration or relief from the divorce judgment and for a stay of the proceedings. Additionally, defendant objected to the monthly child support calculated at $1,082 a month. The trial court denied defendant's motions, citing the failure to timely seek review and to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. It al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7124f792-4dfd-44df-ba75-c448b199c046","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-6800574-6800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 6800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): endant had failed to make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interview"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e44097b-ba9f-432f-a1c3-8e08d3f31f9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382","title":"CourtListener opinion 7275382","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7275382 Extracted case name: CHERYL ABBOTT OLSON v. BRIAN MATTHEW OLSON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7275382 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e44097b-ba9f-432f-a1c3-8e08d3f31f9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382","title":"CourtListener opinion 7275382","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e44097b-ba9f-432f-a1c3-8e08d3f31f9d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7275382-7275382","title":"CourtListener opinion 7275382","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tiff filed the United Kingdom divorce decree with the trial court in Connecticut under princi- ples of comity. On January 25, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order to enforce the parties' foreign judgment of dissolution and approve two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared by an attorney retained by both parties. On March 7, 2011, the court, Wenzel, J., granted, by agreement of the par- ties, the plaintiff's motion for order to enforce judgment, postjudgment, and entered the two QDROs as orders of the court. Subsequently, in May, 2011, the plaintiff sought a modification of alimony in the Superior Court fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a89c3e6-8f9e-45fa-90df-94b25cae49aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844","title":"CourtListener opinion 7360844","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"106 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7360844 Extracted reporter citation: 209 A.3d 367. Docket: 106 EDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7360844 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a89c3e6-8f9e-45fa-90df-94b25cae49aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844","title":"CourtListener opinion 7360844","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"106 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a89c3e6-8f9e-45fa-90df-94b25cae49aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844","title":"CourtListener opinion 7360844","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"106 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: u of monthly pension payments from the date of separation until the time the property is sold will be determined once the property is sold and deducted from Lisa Pierce's portion of the [marital] value of the pension. If a balanced exists at this time, a QDRO will be written to state that Lisa Pierce will receive $1,000 a month until the remaining balance of Lisa Pierce's [marital] value of the pension is met. APSA Paragraphs 7(e) and (f). In July of 2011, Husband filed a Petition for Special Relief/Petition to Enforce the original PSA and APSA. Husband alleged, among other things, that Wife had failed t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a89c3e6-8f9e-45fa-90df-94b25cae49aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7360844-7360844","title":"CourtListener opinion 7360844","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"106 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"209 A.3d 367","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: FILED JULY 26, 2022 Appellant, Kevin Pierce (\"Husband\"), appeals from the Order entered on December 3, 2021, awarding Appellee, Lisa C. Pierce (\"Wife\"), the tentative sum of $90,954.85 from Husband's Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System (\"SERS\") pension account, to be paid at the rate of $1,000.00 per month. After careful consideration, we affirm. Our examination of the record below, with particular attention to the parties' 2008 Property Settlement Agreement (\"PSA\") and their 2009 Amended Property Settlement Agreement (\"APSA\") confirms that the trial court opinion and order of December 3, 2021, appr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7374904 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF WILLIAM GEORGE. Docket: 2-19-1099 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7374904 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The trial court ordered that the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan be divided equally between the parties. Thus, each party should have received $46,159 of the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan ($92,318 divided by 2). However, the qualified domestic relations order directed the pension plan to pay the wife $46,151, or $8 less than the trial court's order. The trial court found this difference to be de minimis and therefore a remand to correct it unnecessary. Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 267 (2002). ¶ 114 We find respondent's reliance on Lindsey-Robinson unpersuasive. The error involved in that case was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: capital call before it was due; (2) petitioner continued to pay his employees \"significant\" annual bonuses and salaries; (3) from 2016 to 2017, petitioner increased the wages paid to his employees by $117,110; (4) the contributions to ConopCo's employees' pension and profit-sharing plans for 2017 exceeded the average of the preceding three years (2014-2016) by more than $100,000; (5) in 2018, petitioner continued to pay Beecroft a full salary even though she was not working full time due to an illness; - 19 - 2022 IL App (2d) 191099-U (6) in 2017, petitioner paid Beecroft an extra $1000 per month in June, July"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: court ordered that the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan be divided equally between the parties. Thus, each party should have received $46,159 of the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan ($92,318 divided by 2). However, the qualified domestic relations order directed the pension plan to pay the wife $46,151, or $8 less than the trial court's order. The trial court found this difference to be de minimis and therefore a remand to correct it unnecessary. Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 267 (2002). ¶ 114 We find respondent's reliance on Lindsey-Robinson unpersuasive. The error involved in that case was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d893d1e1-ce2b-4d4b-a648-755103fdd190","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7374904-7374904","title":"CourtListener opinion 7374904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-19-1099 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: she was an \"employee\" of ConopCo and he did not provide her with a paycheck and access to her \"wages.\" Petitioner does not challenge this finding on appeal. - 50 - 2022 IL App (2d) 191099-U of the assets. Thus, certain assets awarded to respondent in an equitable distribution of marital property were also considered as a source of income to petitioner for purposes of imposing support obligations. This resulted in \"double dipping\" and was improper. See In re Marriage of O'Malley, 2021 IL App (2d) 190917-U, ¶ 66; see also In re Marriage of Eberhardt, 387 Ill. App. 3d 226, 232 (2008) (discussing the concept of \"double dipping\")"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9e1cfea-e18d-4acc-be70-2f6755bcb54b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027","title":"CourtListener opinion 7602027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7602027 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7602027 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9e1cfea-e18d-4acc-be70-2f6755bcb54b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027","title":"CourtListener opinion 7602027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9e1cfea-e18d-4acc-be70-2f6755bcb54b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027","title":"CourtListener opinion 7602027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: decree was entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that awarded the wife a percentage of the survivor's benefit under the husband's retirement program. We turn first to the ruling concerning contempt. The wife alleged the husband had failed to complete the necessary paperwork for her to secure the 30% survivor annuity awarded to her in the amended divorce order. It is her position that this failure on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9e1cfea-e18d-4acc-be70-2f6755bcb54b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027","title":"CourtListener opinion 7602027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that awarded the wife a percentage of the survivor's benefit under the husband's retirement program. We turn first to the ruling concerning contempt. The wife alleged the husband had failed to complete the necessary paperwork for her to secure the 30% survivor annuity awarded to her in the amended divorce order. It is her position that this failure on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a9e1cfea-e18d-4acc-be70-2f6755bcb54b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7602027-7602027","title":"CourtListener opinion 7602027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ther the trial court erred in awarding an attorney's fee to the wife from the husband where the husband was not found to be in contempt. Next, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by increasing the alimony award to be paid from the husband's survivor annuity. The original divorce decree was entered in August 1988, and an amended decree was entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7618020 Extracted case name: MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JANIE MCKENZIE-WELLS. Extracted reporter citation: 833 S.W.2d 825. Docket: 2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7618020 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to CR1 59.05. Hall also requested additi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and the Salyersville residence to Hall. The court also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to CR1 59.05. Hall also requested additi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c1f881-aa60-40d1-b81b-7dcc40859abb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7618020-7618020","title":"CourtListener opinion 7618020","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"833 S.W.2d 825","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: arital residence to Fannin and the Salyersville residence to Hall. The court also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d162e998-9462-4d8d-a401-cf5377cff9a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899","title":"CourtListener opinion 76899","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 76899 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 76899 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d162e998-9462-4d8d-a401-cf5377cff9a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899","title":"CourtListener opinion 76899","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d162e998-9462-4d8d-a401-cf5377cff9a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899","title":"CourtListener opinion 76899","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fore DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge. PER CURIAM: In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joan Thomas Guth (f. k. a. Joan Thomas Fontaine) appeals from the district court's determination that the 1986 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") governing the equitable division of marital assets between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-appellee Richard Charles Fontaine remains in effect. Defendant-appellant requests that the Court reverse the district court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Georgia do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d162e998-9462-4d8d-a401-cf5377cff9a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899","title":"CourtListener opinion 76899","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: orgia (March 8, 2005) Before DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge. PER CURIAM: In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joan Thomas Guth (f. k. a. Joan Thomas Fontaine) appeals from the district court's determination that the 1986 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") governing the equitable division of marital assets between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-appellee Richard Charles Fontaine remains in effect. Defendant-appellant requests that the Court reverse the district court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Geo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d162e998-9462-4d8d-a401-cf5377cff9a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-76899-76899","title":"CourtListener opinion 76899","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rict court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Georgia domestic relations law makes clear that post-judgment modification by a court of a divorce decree concerning the equitable distribution of property is normally not permissible. See, e.g., Williams v. Williams, 268 Ga. 126, 129, 485 S.E.2d 772, 775 (Ga. 1997) (\"[A]n unexpected increase in the value of a risky * Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 asset is insufficient grounds to upset the policy disfavoring modif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"711617d7-9314-4280-b861-7f1e4a80720b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420","title":"CourtListener opinion 7797420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0580","extracted_reporter_citation":"708 N.W.2d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7797420 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THOMAS EDWARD GRAY AND NORMALEENA RAMIREZ GRAY n. Extracted reporter citation: 708 N.W.2d 347. Docket: 21-0580. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7797420 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"711617d7-9314-4280-b861-7f1e4a80720b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420","title":"CourtListener opinion 7797420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0580","extracted_reporter_citation":"708 N.W.2d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"711617d7-9314-4280-b861-7f1e4a80720b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420","title":"CourtListener opinion 7797420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0580","extracted_reporter_citation":"708 N.W.2d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e of a modification\"); In re Marriage of Heath-Clark & Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order \"to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree\"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted \"federal service\" within the meaning of that order. The phrase \"federal service\" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer int"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"711617d7-9314-4280-b861-7f1e4a80720b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420","title":"CourtListener opinion 7797420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0580","extracted_reporter_citation":"708 N.W.2d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ification\"); In re Marriage of Heath-Clark & Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order \"to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree\"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted \"federal service\" within the meaning of that order. The phrase \"federal service\" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer int"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"711617d7-9314-4280-b861-7f1e4a80720b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7797420-7797420","title":"CourtListener opinion 7797420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-0580","extracted_reporter_citation":"708 N.W.2d 347","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order \"to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree\"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted \"federal service\" within the meaning of that order. The phrase \"federal service\" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer interrogatories on the issue. Gray provid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7798564 Docket: 356764 Charlevoix Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7798564 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interviewed the daughter but did not divulge her wishes"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: red the preference of the daughter,4 and awarded primary physical custody to plaintiff. It referred the child support calculation to the Friend of the Court (FOC). The trial court then considered the parties' assets, the valuations, the marital debts, and the retirement accounts. After reviewing the factors to consider in rendering a property division, the trial court awarded plaintiff the marital home and delineated the terms for removal of defendant's interest. It also concluded that the lack of liquid assets warranted an award of $2,800 in monthly spousal support to plaintiff for 48 months. The trial court ordered that defendan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rt ordered that defendant be held responsible for attorney fees as marital debt for failing to cooperate in good faith throughout the litigation, violating the court's restraining order, and engaging in furtive behavior pertaining to separate accounts and the pension evaluation. Defendant moved for reconsideration or relief from the divorce judgment and for a stay of the proceedings. Additionally, defendant objected to the monthly child support calculated at $1,082 a month. The trial court denied defendant's motions, citing the failure to timely seek review and to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. It al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9857bb36-228b-40cb-805e-1dc98c34dcad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7798564-7798564","title":"CourtListener opinion 7798564","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"356764 Charlevoix Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): endant had failed to make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interview"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4b727de-4be0-4214-9683-0d55c5675a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for this case are cited as","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7800221 Extracted case name: LLC v. FI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: for this case are cited as. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7800221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4b727de-4be0-4214-9683-0d55c5675a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for this case are cited as","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4b727de-4be0-4214-9683-0d55c5675a00","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800221-7800221","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"for this case are cited as","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hed that the use of the term Majority Consent in Section 7.1 is a scrivener's error. Qualizza's reliance on Dauderman v. Dauderman, 263 N.E.2d 708 (Ill. App. 1970) is misplaced. In Dauderman the words \"per month\" were omitted from an alimony provision in a domestic relations order. Id. at 710. The appeals court concluded that the omission was \"clearly clerical in nature,\" observing that the trial judge's notes reflected that he had directed counsel to include monthly alimony in the order, and that there were written memoranda of counsel for both parties which clearly suggested that periodic, rather than a lump sum, alimony payme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7800574 Docket: 21CA011807 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7800574 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. {¶2} Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski (\"Wife\") and Daniel Jowiski (\"Husband\") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d\") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which is the number of years [Husband] participated in said plan while married to [Wife], the denominator of which i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it deems necessary to provide [Wife] with all benefits to which she is entitled or that are necessary to effectuate the terms of the Plan[.]\" {¶3} In 2020, Husband filed a \"Motion to Modify and Clarify Judgment Entry Regarding [Husband's] Retirement and Pension\" (\"Motion to Modify\"). In it, he asserted that he worked for Ford for 12 years while the parties were married, continued to work there after the divorce, and was set to retire after working there for over 35 years. He asserted that, while he was married to Wife, he did not actively contribute to his retirement. According to Husband, had he continued to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba02284b-b826-449c-89a9-19fdeef49fc0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7800574-7800574","title":"CourtListener opinion 7800574","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21CA011807 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: her proceedings consistent with this decision. I. {¶2} Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski (\"Wife\") and Daniel Jowiski (\"Husband\") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7801304 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7801304 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Former Wife argued that Former Husband is a participant of a municipal pension plan which is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and as a result, the municipal pension plan will not pay her a share of the pension benefits pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Former Wife's motion declared that, \"by mutual mistake, the parties fashioned an equitable distribution award that is impossible to perform, untenable and will inevitably lead to compliance issues.\" As relief, Former Wife requested that the trial court \"set aside\" the portion of the final judgment pertaining to the division of the pension benefits and fash"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eement (also referred to as \"the mediation agreement\"). Paragraph seven of the agreement required the equitable distribution of Former Husband's pension benefits and provided as follows: The parties shall each be entitled to one-half share of the husband's retirement account with St. Lucie County Fire Rescue. The date of the division of the retirement account shall be as of August 21, 1996 and each party shall cooperate with the other to effectuate the terms of this provision. The marital settlement agreement was silent as to the method for valuing and paying the pension benefits. However, the agreement stated that the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: el Lopresti (\"Former Husband\") were divorced. The final judgment approved and incorporated a marital settlement agreement (also referred to as \"the mediation agreement\"). Paragraph seven of the agreement required the equitable distribution of Former Husband's pension benefits and provided as follows: The parties shall each be entitled to one-half share of the husband's retirement account with St. Lucie County Fire Rescue. The date of the division of the retirement account shall be as of August 21, 1996 and each party shall cooperate with the other to effectuate the terms of this provision. The marital settlement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adcdbbad-3e16-43b7-8830-3ff95e4d8313","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801304-7801304","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801304","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e argued that Former Husband is a participant of a municipal pension plan which is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and as a result, the municipal pension plan will not pay her a share of the pension benefits pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Former Wife's motion declared that, \"by mutual mistake, the parties fashioned an equitable distribution award that is impossible to perform, untenable and will inevitably lead to compliance issues.\" As relief, Former Wife requested that the trial court \"set aside\" the portion of the final judgment pertaining to the division of the pension benefits and fash"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7801333 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHAEL KAY SOKOL AND DAVID LANGDON SOKOL Upon the Petition of RACHAEL KAY SOKOL. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 21-1918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7801333 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the division of Rachael's 401(k). We affirm that portion of the district court ruling. 7This court has noted: Pension rights are not easily valued. Consequently, the preferred method of valuation of these benefits is, as here, to divide a plan through a qualified domestic relations order which, in essence, separates the pension rights into two separate accounts. This makes valuation of the pension unnecessary, allows the court to allocate other assets equitably, and assures similar retirement security for both spouses. However, such a division of pension benefits is not an absolute requirement. The allocation of a pension, like the al"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r it should be distributed upon dissolution, although it is relevant. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5). 10 business. See id. Given these facts, we determine that equity requires Rachael's medical school student loan debt be included in the property division. 3. Retirement Account David argues the district court should have divided Rachael's 401(k) retirement account separately from the rest of the property \"based on the tax implications.\" However, in the single paragraph devoted to this argument, David cites no authority supporting the proposition that the court should divide the property separately from the rest of the dissol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.\"). Further, the record before this court is void of any evidence on the tax consequences of the division of Rachael's 401(k). We affirm that portion of the district court ruling. 7This court has noted: Pension rights are not easily valued. Consequently, the preferred method of valuation of these benefits is, as here, to divide a plan through a qualified domestic relations order which, in essence, separates the pension rights into two separate accounts. This makes valuation of the pension unnecessary, allows the court to allocate other assets equitably, and a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92f0940d-6c4c-4b0a-8abe-b6dd0c561ff2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7801333-7801333","title":"CourtListener opinion 7801333","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1918","extracted_reporter_citation":"874 N.W.2d 103","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): § 598.21(5). 10 business. See id. Given these facts, we determine that equity requires Rachael's medical school student loan debt be included in the property division. 3. Retirement Account David argues the district court should have divided Rachael's 401(k) retirement account separately from the rest of the property \"based on the tax implications.\" However, in the single paragraph devoted to this argument, David cites no authority supporting the proposition that the court should divide the property separately from the rest of the dissolution property division. 7 \"Failure to cite authority in support of an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d5e9d5-80bb-4edb-a736-ae29856fc77a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015","title":"CourtListener opinion 7802015","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.3d 377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7802015 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ERNESTO M. SCORSONE. Extracted reporter citation: 391 S.W.3d 377. Docket: 2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7802015 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d5e9d5-80bb-4edb-a736-ae29856fc77a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015","title":"CourtListener opinion 7802015","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.3d 377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d5e9d5-80bb-4edb-a736-ae29856fc77a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015","title":"CourtListener opinion 7802015","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.3d 377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n from investigating.\"). -7- Buckley relies upon Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d5e9d5-80bb-4edb-a736-ae29856fc77a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015","title":"CourtListener opinion 7802015","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.3d 377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal, a panel of this Court held that equitable estoppel barred"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"59d5e9d5-80bb-4edb-a736-ae29856fc77a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7802015-7802015","title":"CourtListener opinion 7802015","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"391 S.W.3d 377","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: estigating.\"). -7- Buckley relies upon Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7806683 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of ELMER and DONNA. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7806683 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ved issues, which consisted primarily of a division of property, on April 10, 2019. The following aspects of the judgment are at issue in this appeal: The court awarded each party 50 percent of the community value of a Morgan Stanley IRA, to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order1 with the parties to pay equally for the cost. The court found that the community had a 16.38 percent interest in the account as of June 30, 1991. The court found that the community took out $30,000 from the IRA in May 2016 and ordered each party to cover the tax on their share of the withdrawal. The court found that Husband withdrew $1,000 per month from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: at 83.62 percent of the Morgan Stanley account as of June 30, 1991, was Husband's separate property and awarded it to him. 1 \"Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).)\" (In re Marriage of Odd"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e court found that 83.62 percent of the Morgan Stanley account as of June 30, 1991, was Husband's separate property and awarded it to him. 1 \"Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ecdaed0b-1ced-487c-a589-f05851bcc870","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7806683-7806683","title":"CourtListener opinion 7806683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: , which consisted primarily of a division of property, on April 10, 2019. The following aspects of the judgment are at issue in this appeal: The court awarded each party 50 percent of the community value of a Morgan Stanley IRA, to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order1 with the parties to pay equally for the cost. The court found that the community had a 16.38 percent interest in the account as of June 30, 1991. The court found that the community took out $30,000 from the IRA in May 2016 and ordered each party to cover the tax on their share of the withdrawal. The court found that Husband withdrew $1,000 per month from t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8066b96-b4f8-458e-94f5-329bbf754224","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908","title":"CourtListener opinion 7827908","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0608 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 7827908 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Miller. Docket: 2-21-0608 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7827908 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8066b96-b4f8-458e-94f5-329bbf754224","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908","title":"CourtListener opinion 7827908","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0608 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8066b96-b4f8-458e-94f5-329bbf754224","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908","title":"CourtListener opinion 7827908","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0608 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: es that it substantively modified the terms of the judgment. Further, to the extent the orders for support conflicted with the original judgment or amended order, the \"actual pronouncements of the court control.\" Jeffrey likens this issue to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations order (QDRO), which simply carries out the judgment, but does not become a substantive part of the judgment. Moreover, Jeffrey notes that the trial court originally found that the percentage of maintenance was to be a percentage of income, \"to be paid at the rate of $6000 monthly, and the balance to be paid by May of the following year.\" Accordingly, he argue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8066b96-b4f8-458e-94f5-329bbf754224","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908","title":"CourtListener opinion 7827908","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0608 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: substantively modified the terms of the judgment. Further, to the extent the orders for support conflicted with the original judgment or amended order, the \"actual pronouncements of the court control.\" Jeffrey likens this issue to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations order (QDRO), which simply carries out the judgment, but does not become a substantive part of the judgment. Moreover, Jeffrey notes that the trial court originally found that the percentage of maintenance was to be a percentage of income, \"to be paid at the rate of $6000 monthly, and the balance to be paid by May of the following year.\" Accordingly, he argue"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c8066b96-b4f8-458e-94f5-329bbf754224","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-7827908-7827908","title":"CourtListener opinion 7827908","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0608 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: m his employer annually. These percentages apply to Jeffrey Miller's earnings from employment (salary, bonuses, grants and options granted after the date of dissolution) not predecree grants, bonuses and options which have been previously divided in the property division and not income earned on Jeffrey Miller's share of these assets or other passive income. 9. Any income reported on Jeffrey Miller's tax returns or received by Jeffrey Miller as a result of Lorena Miller's exercise of her share of Jeffrey Miller's existing stock options and grants through the date of [the judgment] shall not be considered income to J"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 814716 Extracted case name: RAJ v. MEMORANDUM. Extracted reporter citation: 488 F.3d 1189. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 814716 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and 2 11-35546 discussing factors for reconsideration or relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). Hoppel's arguments that the district court allegedly violated or ignored the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued in her divorce proceedings, rejected evidence of fraud in a prior litigation, or failed to apply Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2010), are not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 3 11-35546"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: insurance policy to her late ex-husband and whether defendant's contract to pay him certain retirement income from its operating budget constituted a qualified plan subject to § 1055's surviving spouse provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (stating that certain pension plans must be provided in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity benefit); id. § 1051(2) (excluding from § 1055 a pension plan that is unfunded and maintained by an employer to provide deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Olaree E. Hoppel appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action for joint and survivor annuity benefits and insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), as amended by * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcac526a-c3e3-44c1-ae70-9f05011ec9bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-814716-814716","title":"CourtListener opinion 814716","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"488 F.3d 1189","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: (setting forth standard of review and 2 11-35546 discussing factors for reconsideration or relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). Hoppel's arguments that the district court allegedly violated or ignored the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued in her divorce proceedings, rejected evidence of fraud in a prior litigation, or failed to apply Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2010), are not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 3 11-35546"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8205826 Extracted reporter citation: 922 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8205826 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ree divided some of Ms. Allen's retirement and benefit plans in the ratio of 55% to Mr. Allen and 45% to Ms. Allen. A list of six plans subject to this division was attached to the decree as a joint exhibit. Four of the plans were to be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"),1 the terms of which were attached as joint exhibits. A QDRO for each plan was subsequently filed in the trial court. {¶13} The fifth plan, known as the \"2005 Excess Defined Contribution Plan,\" is nonqualified, meaning it could not be divided pursuant to a QDRO. The divorce decree requires Ms. Allen to pay Mr. Allen's share directly as spous"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: L. Allen (\"Mr. Allen\"), appeals from the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling his objections to the magistrate's decision and denying his motions (1) for additional orders to enforce the assignment of retirement benefits; (2) to rescind permission to make direct spousal support payments; (3) to show cause; and (4) for attorney fees. Mr. Allen's motions relate to the divorce decree between himself and his former spouse, appellee Karen S. Allen (\"Ms. Allen\"). {¶2} Mr. Allen asserts five assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Allen contends that the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Sullivan, supra, at ¶ 26-27 (the husband received vested benefits that he had transferred to another account); Bevan v. Bevan, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA008969, 2008-Ohio-724, ¶ 1 (the husband elected to receive a different type of vested benefits from his pension fund). Rather than enforcement, Mr. Allen sought to modify the assignment of benefits to include more favorable terms. Without Ms. Allen's express written agreement, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree in this manner. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's jurisdictional determination. {¶59} Mr. Allen's second assignment of er"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"953567f1-5fd1-4d43-94a5-9d92e2108ee3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8205826-8205826","title":"CourtListener opinion 8205826","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): of the plans were to be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"),1 the terms of which were attached as joint exhibits. A QDRO for each plan was subsequently filed in the trial court. {¶13} The fifth plan, known as the \"2005 Excess Defined Contribution Plan,\" is nonqualified, meaning it could not be divided pursuant to a QDRO. The divorce decree requires Ms. Allen to pay Mr. Allen's share directly as spousal support immediately upon her \"receipt/withdrawal.\" The decree provides that a QDRO will be issued in the event the plan's nonqualified status changes. The decree does not specifically address the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d0dcb7d-e219-48d3-bdd3-741a5f3dc7e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585","title":"CourtListener opinion 8206585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 N.E.2d 284","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8206585 Extracted case name: STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARKOW. Extracted reporter citation: 819 N.E.2d 284. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8206585 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d0dcb7d-e219-48d3-bdd3-741a5f3dc7e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585","title":"CourtListener opinion 8206585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 N.E.2d 284","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d0dcb7d-e219-48d3-bdd3-741a5f3dc7e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585","title":"CourtListener opinion 8206585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 N.E.2d 284","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 's findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, how"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d0dcb7d-e219-48d3-bdd3-741a5f3dc7e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585","title":"CourtListener opinion 8206585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 N.E.2d 284","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: isconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, however, because Arkow had never submitted Hall's information"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d0dcb7d-e219-48d3-bdd3-741a5f3dc7e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8206585-8206585","title":"CourtListener opinion 8206585","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"819 N.E.2d 284","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s of misconduct and recommended sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, how"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d1b5844-661d-4653-86ae-9e2e359cddf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.2d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8207633 Extracted reporter citation: 927 F.2d 955. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8207633 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d1b5844-661d-4653-86ae-9e2e359cddf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.2d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d1b5844-661d-4653-86ae-9e2e359cddf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.2d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of $573.42, representing his half of the marital portion of petitioner's retirement. Petitioner testified that, pursuant to the parties' agreement, the family court would enter, and the retirement board would implement, a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to divide the marital portion of her retirement between the parties. Once the QDRO was entered and implemented, petitioner's obligation to pay respondent the monthly sum of $573.42, pursuant to the October 21, 2021, order, would cease as respondent would receive his half of the marital portion of petitioner's retirement directly from the retirement board."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d1b5844-661d-4653-86ae-9e2e359cddf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.2d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ermined that the house constructed after the marriage constituted marital property. Respondent had the marital residence appraised, and it was valued at $20,000. Also, at the March 23, 2020, hearing, respondent raised the issue of the marital portion of the retirement benefits being paid to petitioner. Respondent asserted that approximately 75% of petitioner's retirement constituted marital property. The family court, by an order entered on October 21, 2021, found that petitioner receives $1,520 per month in retirement benefits from the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (\"retirement board\"). The family court fur"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d1b5844-661d-4653-86ae-9e2e359cddf1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207633-8207633","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207633","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"927 F.2d 955","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: als the June 2, 2021, order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County refusing her appeal from the April 26, 2021, agreed final order of the Family Court of Jackson County that granted petitioner a divorce from Respondent Dallas Ray Simons 1 and provided for the equitable distribution of marital assets between the parties. On appeal, petitioner challenges the equitable distribution. Respondent, by counsel Leah R. Chappell, filed a summary response. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court has considered petitioner's brief and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee3cfc53-49fe-4a42-b229-5cd910f6a56c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8207755 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8207755 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee3cfc53-49fe-4a42-b229-5cd910f6a56c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee3cfc53-49fe-4a42-b229-5cd910f6a56c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ent Entry, the trial court set forth what transpired at the December 13, 2021 and the February 2, 2022 hearings, respectively, and made orders. The February 14, 2022, Judgment Entry made final orders with respect to the then-pending motions as follows: 1. Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After further discussion and drafting, the parties agreed on the terms and language to be included in the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) called for in section 14.C. (on pages 27-28) of the Decree of Divorce. The parties approved the QDRO and submitted it to the Court for review and approval. The Court approved the QDRO, signed it, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee3cfc53-49fe-4a42-b229-5cd910f6a56c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8207755-8207755","title":"CourtListener opinion 8207755","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the trial court set forth what transpired at the December 13, 2021 and the February 2, 2022 hearings, respectively, and made orders. The February 14, 2022, Judgment Entry made final orders with respect to the then-pending motions as follows: 1. Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After further discussion and drafting, the parties agreed on the terms and language to be included in the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) called for in section 14.C. (on pages 27-28) of the Decree of Divorce. The parties approved the QDRO and submitted it to the Court for review and approval. The Court approved the QDRO, signed it, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e89190e-abb9-4013-aad7-ac5d0b784e0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0434 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8208226 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF TODD KALIS. Docket: 2-21-0434 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8208226 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e89190e-abb9-4013-aad7-ac5d0b784e0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0434 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e89190e-abb9-4013-aad7-ac5d0b784e0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0434 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t she could modify the claim, if necessary, within that time period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. To"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e89190e-abb9-4013-aad7-ac5d0b784e0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0434 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. Todd filed a response to the motion for entry o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e89190e-abb9-4013-aad7-ac5d0b784e0f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208226-8208226","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208226","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0434 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d modify the claim, if necessary, within that time period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. To"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8208403 Extracted case name: CARRION v. CARRION. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8208403 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: awarded their debts and property, including each party's interest in various retirement assets. In part, the decree provided that Wife receive: One half of the community interest in any employment benefits and deferred compensation, including pension and retirement benefits, as a result of [Husband's] employment including, but not limited to, [Husband's PSPRS] retirement and his 401(k), but shall not include his \"deferred comp\" account[1] which is awarded to [Husband] in its entirety. The decree expressly contemplated Husband's retirement \"at the normal 20 year retirement\" in July 2020 and also provided that the superior"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: David B. Gass joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Jeff Carrion (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's post- decree domestic relations orders addressing the division of two retirement assets—Husband's Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (\"PSPRS\") pension and his City of Peoria 401(a) Plan account—between him and his ex-wife, Lindsay Hunter Carrion (\"Wife\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married in 1999, and Wife petitioned for divorce in May 2014. In August 2014, the couple divorced pursuant to a consent judgment and decree of dissolution (\"th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): t Wife receive: One half of the community interest in any employment benefits and deferred compensation, including pension and retirement benefits, as a result of [Husband's] employment including, but not limited to, [Husband's PSPRS] retirement and his 401(k), but shall not include his \"deferred comp\" account[1] which is awarded to [Husband] in its entirety. The decree expressly contemplated Husband's retirement \"at the normal 20 year retirement\" in July 2020 and also provided that the superior court would reserve \"jurisdiction to enter any orders necessary to divide retirement assets as provided in Exhibit A,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ef27081-626f-4667-9e76-817d117759d7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8208403-8208403","title":"CourtListener opinion 8208403","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Jeff Carrion (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's post- decree domestic relations orders addressing the division of two retirement assets—Husband's Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (\"PSPRS\") pension and his City of Peoria 401(a) Plan account—between him and his ex-wife, Lindsay Hunter Carrion (\"Wife\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married in 1999, and Wife petit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8210737 Extracted reporter citation: 86 N.E.3d 937. Docket: 29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8210737 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t in the subject property. That interest vested – that is, became fixed – at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. Lelak I, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28243, 2019-Ohio-4807, at ¶ 18. {¶ 17} We then remarked on the bankruptcy court's recognition of the \"distinction"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ............. WELBAUM, J. -2- {¶ 1} This matter is before our court for the third time. Most recently, M. Angela Lelak (aka Siddall) (\"Siddall\") appealed from a November 2, 2021 trial court judgment awarding her 11% in statutory interest on $10,313 in retirement benefits that her ex- husband, John W. Lelak, Jr. (\"Lelak\") failed to pay. The judgment also awarded Siddall $2,000 in attorney fees based on a contempt finding against Lelak for failing to pay the benefits. That appeal was filed on November 22, 2021, and was designated Montgomery C.A. No. 29308. {¶ 2} On December 2, 2021, Lelak also appealed from the same ju"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the withdrawal. The trial court also stated it could not order Lelak to pay the amount owed because doing so would constitute an impermissible modification of the divorce decree, since the decree did not set forth an alternate method of payment of the pension benefits. Further, the court found the doctrine of laches operated to prevent it from crafting a method for such payment. In sum, the trial court declined to find Lelak in contempt and ruled Siddall was not entitled to payment of the pension benefits, any growth thereon, or attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 9-11. {¶ 21} We disagreed with the trial court's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ad7b2b9c-c1fb-4e7c-8dfc-65689f59bea0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210737-8210737","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"86 N.E.3d 937","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: subject property. That interest vested – that is, became fixed – at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. Lelak I, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28243, 2019-Ohio-4807, at ¶ 18. {¶ 17} We then remarked on the bankruptcy court's recognition of the \"distinction"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8210958 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 64. Docket: L-21-1168 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8210958 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: fits equally, the trial court applied the method of dividing such benefits that prevailed in 1999, the year in which the divorce decree was issued. According to the trial court, parties wishing to divide pension plans in 1999 utilized a \"separate interest\" Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act, 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(5)(A), which \"incorporates survivorship, both 10. pre-retirement and post-retirement.\" Under this structure, a coverture formula was used to calculate the former spouse's pro-rata share of the member's retirement benefit. Notably, the trial court recognized a local court rule that was in e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pellant, Joan Haddox, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, issuing a division of property order (DOPO) concerning its prior award of a portion of Joan's State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) retirement benefit to appellee, Donald Haddox. A. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} This action began on April 21, 1997, the date Joan filed her complaint for divorce. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, an issue arose concerning the valuation and distribution of future distributions from Joan's STRS retirement account. At the time, Joan was still empl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o the method of dividing the parties' retirement benefits equally, the trial court applied the method of dividing such benefits that prevailed in 1999, the year in which the divorce decree was issued. According to the trial court, parties wishing to divide pension plans in 1999 utilized a \"separate interest\" Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act, 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(5)(A), which \"incorporates survivorship, both 10. pre-retirement and post-retirement.\" Under this structure, a coverture formula was used to calculate the former spouse's pro-rata share of the member's retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bd29ae26-39c7-4c34-a1c3-963649a5bb9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8210958-8210958","title":"CourtListener opinion 8210958","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-21-1168 Appellant Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 64","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t recognized a local court rule that was in effect at the time the divorce decree in this case was issued, under which QDROs were \"assumed by rule to be including certain well-known provisions including a separate interest (i.e. survivorship rights) in the alternate payee, and pre-retirement survivorship as well.\" {¶ 30} Consistent with the norms of pension division described above, the trial court determined that Donald is entitled to survivorship benefits, and indicated in its order that such benefits would be incorporated into the divorce decree. Having found that Donald was entitled to survivorship rights, the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8211316 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211316 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed between them. Because Desiree was employed as a teacher in Italy by the United States government and Andrew was a member of the United States military on active duty, the decree of divorce required specific language to be enforceable as to their respective retirement accounts. The magistrate court stated that, due to this specific language, it would \"retain jurisdiction\" with respect to the parties' retirement accounts. A written judgment and decree of divorce was entered on February 26, 2018, and dated nunc pro tunc to June 15, 2017, the date of the parties' oral stipulation. After later motions and hearings on behalf of both"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ) before the magistrate court, which was read into the record by Andrew's counsel. The Stipulation provided in pertinent part: Judgment is entered as follows: . . . The parties are divorced on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. ... 3. The military pension plan in Andrew's name shall be awarded as follows: A. All funds earned up to the date of marriage, August 19, 1998, shall be awarded to Andrew; and B. All funds earned from August 19, 1998, until the date of the entry of this judgment and decree re: divorce shall be equal – shall be equally divided between the parties, since this portion represents the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: JAG to see if it can assist them in having these documents prepared. If so, they shall provide all documentation needed for the completion of both documents. They shall equally share in the cost of said preparation. b. If JAG is unable to prepare the two Domestic Relations Orders, they shall have Peter Svennungsen, or another agreed upon preparer, prepare them and they shall equally share in his costs. They shall contact Peter Svennungsen at [his listed contact information]. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the two retirement /pension [sic] accounts for the preparation and entry of appropriate Domestic Relations Orders"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1312ae6a-9e1f-45ed-a7d1-b8bf16e1366f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211316-8211316","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211316","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ent, the district court agreed and concluded the magistrate court had abused its discretion in three distinct ways: (1) by deciding to remove the nunc pro tunc language from the initial judgment entered on February 26, 2018; (2) by requiring Andrew to obtain \"Survivor Benefit Coverage\" for Desiree; and (3) by excluding, over Andrew's objection, language related to Desiree's Federal Employee Retirement System account. The district court ordered that the amended judgment and decree of divorce entered on October 18, 2018, be vacated and the case remanded to the magistrate court for various findings of fact and conclusions of law. D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5cb147-3c8e-40fa-b403-88cf3408b9d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1419","extracted_reporter_citation":"973 N.W.2d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8211899 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KELLI ANNE NARDONE AND JOHN WILLIAM NARDONE. Extracted reporter citation: 973 N.W.2d 601. Docket: 21-1419. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211899 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5cb147-3c8e-40fa-b403-88cf3408b9d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1419","extracted_reporter_citation":"973 N.W.2d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5cb147-3c8e-40fa-b403-88cf3408b9d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1419","extracted_reporter_citation":"973 N.W.2d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Kelli requested spousal support of $1000 per month. The court's decree ordered spousal support of $550 per month until Kelli qualifies for Medicare, remarries, or either party dies. The court also awarded Kelli one-half of John's military pension through a qualified domestic relations order.2 1 The parties agree that John's military disability payments are not subject to division in the dissolution. See In re Marriage of Erlandson, 973 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) 2 Petitioner's Exhibit 20, a pamphlet entitled Military Divorce Guide, advises that since a military retirement is not a qualified pension under section 401(a) of the Inter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5cb147-3c8e-40fa-b403-88cf3408b9d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1419","extracted_reporter_citation":"973 N.W.2d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the life insurance, otherwise affirm the decree, and decline to award appellate attorney fees. I. Procedural and factual background The parties were married for twenty-two years. John was in the United States Air Force and retired in 2018. He receives a pension of $3090 per month and disability retirement due to service-related injuries of $2283 per month.1 Since leaving the military, John has been employed with Lincoln Technical Institute and earned $83,707 in 2019. Kelli has been employed the past eleven years as a dental hygienist/office manager and earns a salary of $47,426 per year. At trial, Kelli reque"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5cb147-3c8e-40fa-b403-88cf3408b9d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211899-8211899","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211899","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1419","extracted_reporter_citation":"973 N.W.2d 601","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ested spousal support of $1000 per month. The court's decree ordered spousal support of $550 per month until Kelli qualifies for Medicare, remarries, or either party dies. The court also awarded Kelli one-half of John's military pension through a qualified domestic relations order.2 1 The parties agree that John's military disability payments are not subject to division in the dissolution. See In re Marriage of Erlandson, 973 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) 2 Petitioner's Exhibit 20, a pamphlet entitled Military Divorce Guide, advises that since a military retirement is not a qualified pension under section 401(a) of the Inter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8211900 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LORI A. HILL AND MARSHALL R. HILL Upon the Petition of LORI A. HILL. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 21-2007. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211900 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a, Lori is entitled to one-half of Marshall's monthly benefits multiplied by a fraction of which the numerator is 12 and the denominator is the number of years covered by the plan up to maturity (retirement).\" The decree directs Lori's attorney to \"prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO] that are acceptable to the plans' administrators and, under the Benson formula, 3 award Lori one-half of the military and postal retirement benefits accrued during the parties' 12 years of marriage.\" In August 2015, two years after entry of the dissolution decree, the parties consented to and signed proposed orders related to Marshall's feder"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rd. At some point, he took leave from the post office to work full-time for the military. The decretal court noted he had recently resumed full-time with the post office. Because Marshall was not fully vested at the time of dissolution and the value of his retirement benefits was unknown, the district court awarded Lori a percentage of each pension, to be calculated under the method as explained in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996), when Marshall retires. The decree states that \"[u]nder the Benson formula, Lori is entitled to one-half of Marshall's monthly benefits multiplied by a fraction of whi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ing his marriage to Lori Hill. Finding the order consistent with the decretal court's intent, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Marshall and Lori were married for twelve years. The property divided in their 2013 dissolution decree includes pension benefits Marshall is entitled to receive from his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Iowa Air National Guard. Marshall worked for both employers throughout the parties' twelve-year marriage. He was employed by the post office full-time and worked part-time for the Iowa Air National Guard. At some point, he took leave from the post"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6dda9d8e-3651-4cc5-b3fd-1b2bf721a80b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8211900-8211900","title":"CourtListener opinion 8211900","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-2007","extracted_reporter_citation":"545 N.W.2d 252","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: n of the marital share of the benefit occurs in situations, where the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service'\") (quoting W. Troyan, \"Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions,\" in 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)); [In re Marriage of] Poppe, 158 Cal. Rptr. 500, 503–04 [(Cal. Ct. App. 1979)] (\"[T]he basis upon which apportionment was made, years of service during the marriage before separation compared to ‘qualifying' year"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8212253 Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 110353. During the pendency of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8212253 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension. Wife now appeals from that order and argues the trial court abused its discretion in improperly modifying the judgment entry of divorce by using a date for the pension that varies from the date of the termination of the marriage. Our review of pertinent case law authority indicates that it is within the trial court's discretio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: aintiff-appellee Constantine Karabogias (\"husband\") and defendant- appellant Joan Zoltanski (\"wife\") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: led a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5de7e9fe-79e9-4811-a616-0d9b391a465c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212253-8212253","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212253","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): bogias (\"husband\") and defendant- appellant Joan Zoltanski (\"wife\") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8212691 Extracted case name: SEC v. LBRY. Extracted reporter citation: 174 F.3d 599. Docket: 21-20617 tactics that are within the district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8212691 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1989, and whose retirement benefit under the [ARP] exceeds the retirement benefit offered (or that will be offered) by the [RAP], as amended on the benefit commencement date, and the beneficiaries and estates of such persons and alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He also recommended that the subclass should consist of all members of the general class who \"signed a release upon separation of employment.\" B. The Press Action Meanwhile, on September 14, 2020, over four years after the Guenther Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, Movant-Appellant Michael Press, along with 276 other individuals (the \"Press"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of British Petroleum, now known as BP Corporation North America Inc. (\"BP America,\" a Defendant-Appellee in this action), acquired Standard Oil of Ohio (\"Sohio\"). Prior to the acquisition, Sohio employees were members of a Sohio sponsored defined benefit retirement plan (the \"Sohio Plan\"), which calculated its pension distributions using a formula based on an employee's earnings history, tenure of service, and age. Therefore, once employees contributed to the Sohio Plan, Sohio bore the entirety of the investment risk as distribution amounts were based on a predetermined formula that did not account for market performa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: America Inc. (\"BP America,\" a Defendant-Appellee in this action), acquired Standard Oil of Ohio (\"Sohio\"). Prior to the acquisition, Sohio employees were members of a Sohio sponsored defined benefit retirement plan (the \"Sohio Plan\"), which calculated its pension distributions using a formula based on an employee's earnings history, tenure of service, and age. Therefore, once employees contributed to the Sohio Plan, Sohio bore the entirety of the investment risk as distribution amounts were based on a predetermined formula that did not account for market performance. At the time of the acquisition, Sohio's emp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9bc19c0-6377-4f98-a52c-c2a6bf26b7bf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8212691-8212691","title":"CourtListener opinion 8212691","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-20617 tactics that are within the district","extracted_reporter_citation":"174 F.3d 599","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: iffs\") filed a class action complaint against the RAP and BP America (collectively, \"BP\") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging that BP violated numerous provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\") by causing Sohio Legacy Employees to forfeit benefits that they had already accrued and failing to properly disclose this change in their benefits when BP initiated the Conversion (the \"Guenther Action\"). Specifically, the Guenther Plaintiffs alleged that BP should have credited the Sohio Legacy Employees' new RAP opening account balances with the va"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8283464 Extracted reporter citation: 603 S.W.3d 385. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8283464 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the original divorce trial, the trial court sent a letter to the parties dated February 15, 1996, that stated in part, \"Victoria is awarded 60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere and Gregory is awarded 40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]\" On April 17, 1996, the trial court signed the \"Final Decree of Divorce\" which stated that it was \"judicially PRONOUNCED AND RENDERED on February 15, 1996.\" The divorce decree also stated that Victoria was awarded as her \"sole and separate property\" and Gregory was \"divested of all right, title, interest and claim in and to,\" among other things, 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nal. We agree and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND After the conclusion of the original divorce trial, the trial court sent a letter to the parties dated February 15, 1996, that stated in part, \"Victoria is awarded 60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere and Gregory is awarded 40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]\" On April 17, 1996, the trial court signed the \"Final Decree of Divorce\" which stated that it was \"judicially PRONOUNCED AND RENDERED on February 15, 1996.\" The divorce decree also stated that Victoria was awarded as her \"sole and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: names. 2 [s]ixty percent of any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Victoria's] past, present, or future employment, including specifically the following retirement benefits with FDIC: (1) Thrift Savings Plan; and (2) FDIC Savings Plan. The divorce decree also awarded Gregory as his \"sole"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba9c05c6-c6e1-43a0-a350-93676acfaa3c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8283464-8283464","title":"CourtListener opinion 8283464","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"603 S.W.3d 385","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 's] following retirement benefits with FDIC: (1) Thrift Savings Plan; and (2) FDIC Savings Plan; as more fully set forth in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. On August 16, 1996, the trial court signed two separate orders dividing Victoria's FDIC 401(k) Savings Plan and her Thrift Savings Plan. Neither the divorce decree nor the two orders mentioned Victoria's FDIC retirement benefits—the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) Pension. 3 On January 27, 2021, Gregory filed his \"Petition for Enforcement of Property Division,\" alleging that Victoria retired from the FDIC in December 2019 and failed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6123d12-a933-4e5f-9aea-60b3ce0f2402","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938","title":"CourtListener opinion 829938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 829938 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 829938 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6123d12-a933-4e5f-9aea-60b3ce0f2402","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938","title":"CourtListener opinion 829938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6123d12-a933-4e5f-9aea-60b3ce0f2402","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938","title":"CourtListener opinion 829938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: granted, of whether the trial court correctly held that the parties' November 14, 1994 divorce judgment limited the plaintiff's survivorship benefit to a proportionate interest based on years of marriage, that the divorce judgment conflicted with the 1995 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) agreed upon by the parties, that the terms of the divorce judgment should control over the terms of the QDRO, and that the defendant's motion to have the QDRO amended was not time- barred. We do not retain jurisdiction. I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6123d12-a933-4e5f-9aea-60b3ce0f2402","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-829938-829938","title":"CourtListener opinion 829938","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of whether the trial court correctly held that the parties' November 14, 1994 divorce judgment limited the plaintiff's survivorship benefit to a proportionate interest based on years of marriage, that the divorce judgment conflicted with the 1995 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) agreed upon by the parties, that the terms of the divorce judgment should control over the terms of the QDRO, and that the defendant's motion to have the QDRO amended was not time- barred. We do not retain jurisdiction. I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8374212 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoll and Coyne. Docket: 2-21-0739 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8374212 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: civil contempt for entirely depleting a securities investment account that the MSA directed be divided between the parties. The trial court also did not err in declining to hold petitioner in indirect civil contempt for failing to cooperate in preparing a QDRO for the division of a retirement account. Since the QDRO had been completed before the hearing on the petition for a rule to show cause, a civil contempt finding would be inappropriate because petitioner would have no means to purge himself of the contempt. ¶2 In this post-dissolution proceeding, Matthew Zyskowski (petitioner), and Noelia Zyskowski (a/"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: depleting a securities investment account that the MSA directed be divided between the parties. The trial court also did not err in declining to hold petitioner in indirect civil contempt for failing to cooperate in preparing a QDRO for the division of a retirement account. Since the QDRO had been completed before the hearing on the petition for a rule to show cause, a civil contempt finding would be inappropriate because petitioner would have no means to purge himself of the contempt. ¶2 In this post-dissolution proceeding, Matthew Zyskowski (petitioner), and Noelia Zyskowski (a/k/a Noelia Donamaria) (respondent), each f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): marital portion of said IRA account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.\" (Emphasis in original.) ¶6 Section 10.2 governed the division of petitioner's \"Barclay 401(k)\" (the Barclay 401(k)), which had an approximate balance of $218,206.86. It similarly provided that respondent was \"entitled to one half (50%) of the marital portion of said 401K account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.\" (Emphasis in original.) -2- 2022"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d2652115-0a98-45cd-af20-f2ed5962a1db","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8374212-8374212","title":"CourtListener opinion 8374212","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0739 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: visions concerning the financial accounts at issue here. ¶5 Section 10.1 governed the division of petitioner's \"PNC Roth IRA\" (the Roth IRA), which had an approximate balance of $49,800.01. It provided that respondent was \"entitled to one half (50%) of the marital portion of said IRA account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.\" (Emphasis in original.) ¶6 Section 10.2 governed the division of petitioner's \"Barclay 401(k)\" (the Barclay 401(k)), which had an approximate balance of $218,206.86. It similarly provided that responden"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5efccdbe-b800-4748-bfbf-72794e70d153","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988","title":"CourtListener opinion 8404988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8404988 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8404988 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5efccdbe-b800-4748-bfbf-72794e70d153","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988","title":"CourtListener opinion 8404988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5efccdbe-b800-4748-bfbf-72794e70d153","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8404988-8404988","title":"CourtListener opinion 8404988","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: DB CATHERINE MARIE DELAO, Respondent. OCT 24 2022 aie psn BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree district court order directing (1) appellant to obtain a life insurance policy, (2) that an indemnification QDRO will not be entered if appellant obtains the required life insurance, (3) counsel for respondent to notify the court if a compliant life insurance policy is obtained, and (4) that if appellant fails to timely obtain life insurance, the indemnification QDRO shall be submitted to the court for signature. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebcf014d-d4cf-4eae-a236-ec86a6570c8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420","title":"CourtListener opinion 8405420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8405420 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8405420 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebcf014d-d4cf-4eae-a236-ec86a6570c8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420","title":"CourtListener opinion 8405420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ebcf014d-d4cf-4eae-a236-ec86a6570c8b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8405420-8405420","title":"CourtListener opinion 8405420","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: espondent. oCT 2 4 2022 ELETH BPOWN CLE EME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree district court order directing (1) appellant to obtain a life insurance policy, (2) that an indemnification QDRO will not be entered if appellant obtains the required life insurance, (3) counsel for respondent to notify the court if a compliant life insurance policy is obtained, and (4) that if appellant fails to timely obtain life insurance, the indemnification QDRO shall be submitted to the court for signature. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25325038-ffdc-4b8b-bb5e-ce7e739f44e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622","title":"CourtListener opinion 8406622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8406622 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8406622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25325038-ffdc-4b8b-bb5e-ce7e739f44e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622","title":"CourtListener opinion 8406622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25325038-ffdc-4b8b-bb5e-ce7e739f44e1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8406622-8406622","title":"CourtListener opinion 8406622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"301 P.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: espondent. oCT 2 4 2022 ELETH BPOWN CLE EME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree district court order directing (1) appellant to obtain a life insurance policy, (2) that an indemnification QDRO will not be entered if appellant obtains the required life insurance, (3) counsel for respondent to notify the court if a compliant life insurance policy is obtained, and (4) that if appellant fails to timely obtain life insurance, the indemnification QDRO shall be submitted to the court for signature. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8407060 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407060 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain \"equal to one-half of the date of separation balance\" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled \"Motion For Entry of [QDROs],\" in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he \"is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]\" and that he \"is in need of, and entitled to, discovery\" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the \"2005 Consent Order\"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e3e79b5f-54fe-4416-ac95-180638de04f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407060-8407060","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407060","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bf1791a-48a9-4387-9a92-7f5c6d63fc67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407190","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1343 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8407190 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1343 EDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407190 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bf1791a-48a9-4387-9a92-7f5c6d63fc67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407190","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1343 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6bf1791a-48a9-4387-9a92-7f5c6d63fc67","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407190-8407190","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407190","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1343 EDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed,\" hearings were in fact held on those days: While [the trial docket] indicates that Continuance Orders were docketed on April 11[ and] November 20, 2018; January 4[ and] October 24, 2019; June 29, 2020; February 19[ and] May 12, 2021, a review of each Domestic Relations Order (DRO) . . . shows that Permanency Review Orders were docketed for those hearing dates and Court Orders were issued [regarding] Mother's compliance. - 24 - J-S30017-22 Id. at 26; see also N.T., 4/27/22, at 20 (\"It should be noted that, notwithstanding [the docket] stating, ‘continuance order,' that does not mean that the matter was continued. . . ."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8407560 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE ANN HIATT AND JEREMY SCOTT HIATT Upon the Petition of KATIE ANN HIATT. Extracted reporter citation: 601 N.W.2d 48. Docket: 22-0758. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407560 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: but because he dissipated $41,050.92, Jeremy's share was reduced to $3034.58. The court determined Katie had $22,800.40 more in her 401(k) than Jeremy had in his 401(k). The court required Katie to pay Jeremy one-half of that amount through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. The parties each kept their individual bank accounts, personal property, and other items in their possessions. The court ordered Jeremy to pay $2500 for Katie's attorney fees. Jeremy appeals the physical care and spousal support provisions of the dissolution decree.3 Katie requests appellate attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: bout $20,000 to $21,000 in gambling. Jeremy engaged in online sports gambling and at times also went to a casino. He held poker games in his garage. Jeremy spent large amounts of money on scratch-off tickets. At Jeremy's request, Katie cashed out her IPERS retirement account of about $32,000, and Jeremy also took loans against his 401k account. In 2019, Jeremy had $43,000 of debt. Through a debt collection agency, he paid it down to $9094 at the time of the trial. Jeremy began therapy in May 2021, and although he felt this was helping him with his gambling problem, he had not ceased the consumption of alcohol. He stated he"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): g and at times also went to a casino. He held poker games in his garage. Jeremy spent large amounts of money on scratch-off tickets. At Jeremy's request, Katie cashed out her IPERS retirement account of about $32,000, and Jeremy also took loans against his 401k account. In 2019, Jeremy had $43,000 of debt. Through a debt collection agency, he paid it down to $9094 at the time of the trial. Jeremy began therapy in May 2021, and although he felt this was helping him with his gambling problem, he had not ceased the consumption of alcohol. He stated he ceased online gambling two months before trial, but he continu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75213790-e02e-4b3f-84c5-15da002d4968","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8407560-8407560","title":"CourtListener opinion 8407560","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0758","extracted_reporter_citation":"601 N.W.2d 48","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e he dissipated $41,050.92, Jeremy's share was reduced to $3034.58. The court determined Katie had $22,800.40 more in her 401(k) than Jeremy had in his 401(k). The court required Katie to pay Jeremy one-half of that amount through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. The parties each kept their individual bank accounts, personal property, and other items in their possessions. The court ordered Jeremy to pay $2500 for Katie's attorney fees. Jeremy appeals the physical care and spousal support provisions of the dissolution decree.3 Katie requests appellate attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolut"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8415699 Extracted case name: AGUINIGA v. AGUINIGA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8415699 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: torneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rt affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax returns, and \"encourage[d]\" Husband to refinance the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): zona Supreme Court, we deny relief and affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and asked the sup"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58dfc201-4323-4dc2-9896-08b95931e563","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8415699-8415699","title":"CourtListener opinion 8415699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 (\"2017 Appeal\"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 201"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8436221 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Beltran. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8436221 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: an anti-alienation stat- ute to bar creditors from collecting undistributed funds in an employee benefit plan. 26. Federal Acts: Pensions: Garnishment. The restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on assignment or alienation of pension benefits apply to garnishment. 27. Constitutional Law: Statutes. Federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is the concept that state laws that conflict with federal law are invalid. 28. Federal Acts: Pensions: Garnishment: Statutes. The anti-alienation statute of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: order overruling its application to determine garnishee liability against a plan administrator whose interrogatory answers failed to disclose a judgment debt- or's 401K account. The central issue is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 1—particu- larly, ERISA's anti-alienation statute 2—shields the administra- tor from state garnishment law liability. Because we conclude that it does under the circumstances here, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND Florence Lake Investments, LLC (Florence), obtained a judgment against Jason Berg (Berg) and his wife, Mary Berg 1 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2018 &"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nberg, JJ., and Derr, District Judge. Cassel, J. I. INTRODUCTION A garnishor appeals from an order overruling its application to determine garnishee liability against a plan administrator whose interrogatory answers failed to disclose a judgment debt- or's 401K account. The central issue is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 1—particu- larly, ERISA's anti-alienation statute 2—shields the administra- tor from state garnishment law liability. Because we conclude that it does under the circumstances here, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND Florence Lake Investments, LLC (Florence), obtained"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65a679a7-2ad5-46f1-9b33-ee96d459d45a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8436221-8436221","title":"CourtListener opinion 8436221","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Cir. 1980). 52 See, § 1056(d)(1); Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund, supra note 3. 53 See § 1056(d)(1). But see § 1056(d)(2) and (3) (allowing alienation or assignment of undistributed funds in employee benefit plan in limited situations such as domestic relations order). - 200 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports FLORENCE LAKE INVESTMENTS V. BERG Cite as 312 Neb. 183 payable to the participant or beneficiary.\" 54 Following the dis- tribution of benefits to the participant or beneficiary, ERISA's anti-alienation statute no longer applies. 55 [26] While ERISA's anti-alienation statute does not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 846469 Extracted reporter citation: 324 F3d 941. Docket: 253520. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 846469 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ll such insurance free and clear from any right or interest which the other party now has or may have had therein, by virtue of being 3 The provision in the judgment of divorce in this case is a waiver of rights, but it does not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) and (ii). 7 the beneficiary, contingent beneficiary or otherwise.\" (Emphasis added.) Our review of this provision indicates that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally waived her right to the plan proceeds. Plaintiff and the decedent freely reached an agreement about how to divide property and insurance proceeds. Therefore,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan . . . .\" 4 A recent case decided by this Court—State Treasurer v Abbott, 468 Mich 143; 660 NW2d 714 (2003)—also dealt with ERISA. While Abbott dealt with pension benefits and ERISA's antialienation provision, the principle espoused by this Court was that the Abbott defendant's pension plan proceeds were no longer protected by ERISA after they had been paid by the plan administrator.2 Similarly, today's decision does not invade the purview of ERISA because the plan administrator is still only required to do that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Appellant, v No. 126913 HERBERT ORVILLE SWEEBE, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH CAVANAGH, J. The issue in this case is whether the preemption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., precludes a named beneficiary from waiving the proceeds from a life insurance policy. We hold that it does not. While a plan administrator is required by ERISA to distribute plan proceeds to the named beneficiary, the named beneficiary can then be found to have waived the right to retain those proceeds. In this case, the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ca97f1-9737-4d1a-b9a6-a5a5a1b8ca5a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-846469-846469","title":"CourtListener opinion 846469","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"253520","extracted_reporter_citation":"324 F3d 941","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","beneficiary_dispute","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: surance free and clear from any right or interest which the other party now has or may have had therein, by virtue of being 3 The provision in the judgment of divorce in this case is a waiver of rights, but it does not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) and (ii). 7 the beneficiary, contingent beneficiary or otherwise.\" (Emphasis added.) Our review of this provision indicates that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally waived her right to the plan proceeds. Plaintiff and the decedent freely reached an agreement about how to divide property and insurance proceeds. Therefore,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482279 Extracted case name: GAVALDON v. GAVALDON. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482279 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon (\"Wife\") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, Wife contacted the administrator of the pension plan about the QDRO and discovered that Husband also had an Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution savings plan (\"savings plan\") that she had been unaware of. Wif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ecision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon (\"Wife\") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 202"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fcb909e8-8548-4a8e-a9ff-cb93d836ff25","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482279-8482279","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482279","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. (\"Husband\") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon (\"Wife\") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, W"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482295 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain \"equal to one-half of the date of separation balance\" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled \"Motion For Entry of [QDROs],\" in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he \"is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]\" and that he \"is in need of, and entitled to, discovery\" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the \"2005 Consent Order\"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b945f532-8b03-4dee-ba03-a5aa6fdf1b88","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482295-8482295","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482295","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb22140-13f5-487f-9877-3be5be8354a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482508","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482508 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482508 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb22140-13f5-487f-9877-3be5be8354a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482508","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3cb22140-13f5-487f-9877-3be5be8354a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482508-8482508","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482508","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: )). This Court, by statute, is one of limited jurisdiction. We have appellate jurisdiction, with limited exception, over \"any final judgment, order, or decree of a circuit court in a civil matter.\" Code § 17.1-405(3).5 This includes jurisdiction over final domestic relations orders entered under Titles 16.1 and 20. See Wells v. Wells, 29 Va. App. 82, 86 (1999). As a general matter, a final judgment or order \"is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment.\" Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560 (2002). Matters c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb09e568-de51-4572-98c8-5b84270d695a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482518","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482518 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482518 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb09e568-de51-4572-98c8-5b84270d695a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482518","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bb09e568-de51-4572-98c8-5b84270d695a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482518-8482518","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482518","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: )). This Court, by statute, is one of limited jurisdiction. We have appellate jurisdiction, with limited exception, over \"any final judgment, order, or decree of a circuit court in a civil matter.\" Code § 17.1-405(3).5 This includes jurisdiction over final domestic relations orders entered under Titles 16.1 and 20. See Wells v. Wells, 29 Va. App. 82, 86 (1999). As a general matter, a final judgment or order \"is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment.\" Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560 (2002). Matters c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482601 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CHRISTINA DURAN MORENO. Extracted reporter citation: 212 Cal.App.4th 1565. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482601 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and retirement accounts as of a certain date. Following trial on several reserved issues, the trial court confirmed to the parties their respective retirement accounts and ordered Miguel to pay an equalizing payment to Christina from his 401(k) account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 The court also ordered the parties to equally pay the expert's costs. On appeal, Christina contends the trial court erred in failing to include gains and losses on the QDRO equalizing payment. She further contends the court erred in equally allocating all of the expert's fees in assessing the parties' investment accounts, rather than allocating on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: their first names for ease of reading and to avoid confusion. (In re Marriage of Campi (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1567, fn. 1.) 1 property and assets, with the understanding that a subsequent expert report would characterize and value the investment and retirement accounts as of a certain date. Following trial on several reserved issues, the trial court confirmed to the parties their respective retirement accounts and ordered Miguel to pay an equalizing payment to Christina from his 401(k) account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 The court also ordered the parties to equally pay the expert's costs. On appea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: itted by stipulation in September 2020. Based on Kaplan's revised calculations, the court awarded Christina $619,145 in her retirement and cash accounts, and awarded Miguel $832,146 in his retirement and cash accounts. In order to equalize the division of the pension, retirement, brokerage, and bank accounts, the court ordered Miguel to pay Christina an equalizing payment of $126,501.3 As to expert costs, the tentative decision found that under the prior marital settlement agreement, the parties were responsible for their respective attorneys' fees and costs, \"except for the costs incurred with Seth Kaplan.\" The court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1ca72ca7-d0de-41fa-9871-6e848cc121ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482601-8482601","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482601","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"212 Cal.App.4th 1565","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: arties shall share equally the cost of the expert's additional fees for revising his report. As so modified, we shall affirm the judgment. 2 \"Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8482642 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Belk. Docket: 2-21-0648 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482642 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: meet her reasonable needs.\" The MSA also included a specific provision about the division of Laurence's pension from the District (pension provision): \"With respect to [Laurence's] pension with Countryside Fire Protection District, they will not honor a [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)], therefore either a withholding order shall be placed against [Laurence] or he shall be directly ordered to pay [Judith] in accordance with a formula of 20 years of marriage over years of participation times one half, which shall be paid to [Judith] only in the event it is received by [Laurence] if it is paid to him as a pension benefit. [La"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: minor child. ¶8 On May 1, 2001, the trial court entered a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO) specifying that Judith was to receive her marital portion of Laurence's \"retirement benefit *** when benefits become payable\" or \"on the date the retirement benefit commences.\" Also on May 1, Laurence filed his consent to issue the QILDRO. No further postdissolution motions appear in the record until February 25, 2020. ¶9 On February 25, 2020, Judith filed a petition for issuance of a QILDRO and for restitution. There were apparent notice issues, and, on June 12, 2020, the trial court ordered Judith to effect 1"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Petitioner, Judith Grandt, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County denying her petition for enforcement of judgment and restitution. In her petition, Judith sought to treat the disability pension of respondent, Laurence J. Grandt, as a retirement pension subject to division by the terms of the parties' dissolution of marriage judgment and the marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated therein. On appeal, Judith argues that, where Laurence is eligible to receive a retirement pension, he should not be allowed to frustrate the intent of the MSA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f6d36c0-c34c-447f-a07f-216fb1074dc9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8482642-8482642","title":"CourtListener opinion 8482642","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2-21-0648 Opinion","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: easonable needs.\" The MSA also included a specific provision about the division of Laurence's pension from the District (pension provision): \"With respect to [Laurence's] pension with Countryside Fire Protection District, they will not honor a [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)], therefore either a withholding order shall be placed against [Laurence] or he shall be directly ordered to pay [Judith] in accordance with a formula of 20 years of marriage over years of participation times one half, which shall be paid to [Judith] only in the event it is received by [Laurence] if it is paid to him as a pension benefit. [La"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8484526 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HEATHER ANN BANISTER AND SHAUN IVAN BANISTER Upon the Petition of HEATHER ANN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0221. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8484526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ee- day basis. Turning to the division of property, the court largely rejected Heather's claims that Shaun dissipated marital assets. Her claims focused on the sale of the business for less than its purchase price; Shaun's decision to liquidate a 401(k) retirement account; and $53,860.33 in cash withdrawals and advances, unexplained checks, and excessive spending on Shaun's credit cards since their separation.2 When confronted with these latter expenditures, Shaun argued that most were from his move to Iowa and necessary living expenses. On the sale of the business, the court found Heather presented \"no evidence on whe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): day, three- day basis. Turning to the division of property, the court largely rejected Heather's claims that Shaun dissipated marital assets. Her claims focused on the sale of the business for less than its purchase price; Shaun's decision to liquidate a 401(k) retirement account; and $53,860.33 in cash withdrawals and advances, unexplained checks, and excessive spending on Shaun's credit cards since their separation.2 When confronted with these latter expenditures, Shaun argued that most were from his move to Iowa and necessary living expenses. On the sale of the business, the court found Heather presented"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lties of $7946.26. She complains, absent liquidation, there would have been more in the account to divide. But she never asserted at trial, or on appeal, that she did not want the account to be liquidated and instead transferred to her through a qualified domestic relations order to avoid those penalties. Cf. In re Marriage of Retz, No. 11-0447, 2012 WL 3026786, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 25, 2012) (\"A balance transfer avoids tax consequences of withdrawing funds from a retirement account.\"). Though we do not approve of Shaun's unilateral action in cashing out the account in violation of an asset-preservation order, we find no in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b80af2a0-d793-473d-b212-ce252f685628","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8484526-8484526","title":"CourtListener opinion 8484526","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0221","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , a former stay-at-home mother of three children, appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Shaun Banister. At the trial on her petition, Shaun complained that he had not gotten \"a sniff of a win since this whole thing started.\" So to be \"fair with the property division and with the kids,\" he asked for everything to be split \"down the middle,\" children included. The district court went along with Shaun's request and placed the children in the parties' joint legal custody and physical care. On appeal, Heather challenges that decision, along with the court's division of the parties' property and treatment of attorney fee"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8488106 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of BRILLIANT. Extracted reporter citation: 14 Cal.App.4th 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8488106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pport. He argues Angela's community share of these retirement funds would have provided her with a substantially better standard of living than she enjoyed prior to separation, and the court could have enabled Angela to access her share of the funds through a qualified domestic relations order.10 Brilliant also argues Angela's attorney misled the court into believing Brilliant had sufficient money to pay spousal support by stating Brilliant had $2,000 in monthly savings \"in addition to what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 10 Brilliant points to Los Angeles County Code section 5.25.125, which he asserts provides for early dist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: including $1,277 for home loan payments and $2,000 in \"savings and investments.\" He submitted pay stubs showing his gross monthly pay was approximately $16,100 in January 2021 and $13,000 in February 2021. His monthly contribution to his deferred compensation retirement plan was approximately $2,900 in January and $2,600 in February. B. Hearing on the RFO The family court heard the RFO on April 12, 2021. Both parties were present in court and represented by counsel. After the court summarized the parties' declarations, Angela's attorney argued that Brilliant's declaration failed to address Angela's assertions of domestic viol"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): come. Brilliant's and Angela's attorneys confirmed they prepared the 6 report together. In the \"Input Data\" field, the report listed Brilliant's monthly wage and salary income as $9,669 and Angela's monthly income as $1,367. The parties did not itemize any 401(k) or other deferred compensation contributions, or other deductions or adjustments to their monthly income, except for minor entries reflecting Brilliant's union dues ($84), Angela's health insurance ($133), and Angela's mandatory retirement contributions ($27). Based on these inputs, the DissoMaster calculated guideline support of $2,163 per month for Angela"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1aa0ed19-b69e-421b-8580-7ae83ab93ff4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8488106-8488106","title":"CourtListener opinion 8488106","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"14 Cal.App.4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: argues Angela's community share of these retirement funds would have provided her with a substantially better standard of living than she enjoyed prior to separation, and the court could have enabled Angela to access her share of the funds through a qualified domestic relations order.10 Brilliant also argues Angela's attorney misled the court into believing Brilliant had sufficient money to pay spousal support by stating Brilliant had $2,000 in monthly savings \"in addition to what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 10 Brilliant points to Los Angeles County Code section 5.25.125, which he asserts provides for early dist"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 852021 Extracted reporter citation: 946 N.E.2d 1191. Docket: 71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 852021 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orth, su- pra, § 9.5.10 We conclude by saying that, in writing this opinion, we have been struck by the recur- rence of several fact patterns that have been avoidably problematic – the use of specific dollar amounts rather than percentages, the failure of a QDRO's terms to conform to ERISA require- ments, the failure to provide a contingency if the marital residence cannot be sold – and trust that practitioners and judges alike will contemplate them in their work as well. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 10 Parham v. Parham, 855 N"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: irmed the tri- al court's ruling under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) that awarded one party 55% and the other party 45% (rather than specific dollar amounts) of the 401(k) plan. Id. at 516-19. Beike v. Beike: The parties' settlement agreement divided an employee- pension plan such that the nonemployee spouse was to receive 36% of the value of the plan as of the date of separation, which was calculated to be $353 per month. 805 N.E.2d 1265, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Following the employer's bankruptcy eight years after the divorce, the employee's benefits were reduced by 38%. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: e conclude by saying that, in writing this opinion, we have been struck by the recur- rence of several fact patterns that have been avoidably problematic – the use of specific dollar amounts rather than percentages, the failure of a QDRO's terms to conform to ERISA require- ments, the failure to provide a contingency if the marital residence cannot be sold – and trust that practitioners and judges alike will contemplate them in their work as well. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 10 Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 200"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92bf440c-8c50-470e-b904-491e16c67938","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-852021-852021","title":"CourtListener opinion 852021","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"946 N.E.2d 1191","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): sets in the plan as of the valuation date because they had agreed that each would be entitled to half of the benefit plan as of the valuation date. Id. at 640-41. Case v. Case: The trial court had awarded one party $50,000 and the other party $40,000 of a 401(k) plan valued at $90,000 as of about 60 days prior to the decree. Within 45 days of the decree, the total value had dropped to $67,000. 794 N.E.2d 514, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the tri- al court's ruling under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) that awarded one party 55% and the other party 45% (rather than specific dollar amounts) of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 857641 Extracted reporter citation: 632 F.3d 837. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 857641 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: PA 15219 Counsel for Appellant Harrison Lee, Esq. Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq. (Argued) Blank Rome LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 1 Counsel for Appellees ___________ OPINION ___________ VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") entitles Appellant Cheryl Ann Gruber to 53% of the actuarial equivalent of her former husband‟s normal retirement benefit plus \"53% of the value of any employer subsidy for early retirement\" in the event that her ex-husband \"retires prior to the attainment of age 65.\" (J.A. 58, ¶ 5) (emphasis added). Ms. Gruber‟s ex-husband, Bryn Lindenmuth, re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-2123 _____________ CHERYL ANN GRUBER, Appellant v. PPL RETIREMENT PLAN; PPL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DEPARTMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION; PPL BENEFITS SERVICE AND FIDELITY INVESTMENTS ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 5-11-cv-02188) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ___________ Argued March 5, 2013 Before: RENDELL, AMBRO, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iminated as part of a reduction-in-force. Appellees PPL Retirement Plan, PPL Corporation Employee Benefits Department Plan Administration, and PPL Benefits Service (collectively, \"PPL\"), included in the calculation of Ms. Gruber‟s share of her ex-husband‟s pension the value of an employer subsidy that increased Mr. Lindenmuth‟s pension as a reward for his years of service with PPL, but excluded from that calculation the increase in her ex-husband‟s pension that was payable under a PPL policy that entitled an early-retirement eligible employee to the full amount that would have been payable at age 65 if he or she"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cfa38d5-7fa4-4dad-8522-266107e9af2c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-857641-857641","title":"CourtListener opinion 857641","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"632 F.3d 837","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: however, denied Ms. Gruber‟s administrative claim and her subsequent appeal, reasoning that the GP 401 was payable due to the reduction-in-force, not for early retirement. Ms. Gruber brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, seeking her share of the GP 401 benefits. 4 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Interpreting the phrase in the QDRO, \"any employer subsidy for early retirement,\" the District Court concluded that the GP 401 subsidy was \"not provided „for‟ early retirement,\" interpreting \"for\" as meaning \"because of\" or \"on ac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 859467 Extracted case name: JR. v. D'ANNE P. MCFARLAND DATE OF JUDGMENT. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 859467 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: October 1, 2009, in accordance with the parties' agreement. 2 Initially, it was thought that the Fidelity IRA was in D'Anne's possession Later, it was determined that it was in Skip's possession. It was to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to avoid tax consequences, which was not entered by the court until after the final judgment. 4 ¶7. In its April 18, 2011, Amended Opinion and Final Judgment,3 the court summarized the parties' agreement, finding that Skip owed D'Anne $111,500 (D'Anne's half of the house and business) that was past due, and D'Anne owed Skip $12,613.67 (Skip's half of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ue of the home within sixty days of the hearing (rendering the deadline on or about November 10, 2009); 3) the parties would equally divide their certificates of deposit in the amount of $20,327.34; 4) the parties would equally divide a Fidelity Individual Retirement Account (IRA) in the amount of approximately $63,000; and 5) Skip would pay D'Anne fifty percent of the appraised value of Precision Vision after the appraisal. The home ultimately was appraised at $190,000 and Precision Vision was appraised at $33,000. This agreement was not reduced to or included in an order, until the final order was entered approximately on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 'Anne vacated the home by October 1, 2009, in accordance with the parties' agreement. 2 Initially, it was thought that the Fidelity IRA was in D'Anne's possession Later, it was determined that it was in Skip's possession. It was to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to avoid tax consequences, which was not entered by the court until after the final judgment. 4 ¶7. In its April 18, 2011, Amended Opinion and Final Judgment,3 the court summarized the parties' agreement, finding that Skip owed D'Anne $111,500 (D'Anne's half of the house and business) that was past due, and D'Anne owed Skip $12,613.67 (Skip's ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf2cb1d8-8f98-4049-bc7c-1e90e0d9848b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859467-859467","title":"CourtListener opinion 859467","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the contrary, subject to such distribution such as [non-marital assets]. 8 5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution. [see Armstrong factor No. 9] 6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties. 7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity (See Cheatham factors Nos. 3 & 4). 8. Any other factor which in equity should be co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8595772 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8595772 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Case No. 502014DR0007319. Robert S. Winess of Robert S. Winess, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. Tracy Cardarelli (n/k/a Tracy Forgeron), Boynton Beach, pro se. GROSS, J. The question presented in this case is whether the former wife is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") providing for an increase in her distributions from the former husband's Florida Retirement System (\"FRS\") pension based upon her proportionate share of any cost-of-living adjustment (\"COLA\") received by the former husband. We hold that the former wife's right to a COLA was a vested statutory right that accrued during the marriage, so the QDRO prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hereto as Exhibit \"B\". The Equitable Distribution Schedule is incorporated herein by reference and the parties are directed to comply with the division and distribution of the assets and liabilities provided therein. *** 10. With regard to the parties retirement plans (including, but not limited to, the Husband's Florida State Retirement Plan/Pension), with regard to the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) or similar orders required to effectuate the equal division and distribution of those, the parties shall attempt to agree upon a QDRO expert to prepare all such QDRO's or similar orders . . . The Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Beach, pro se. GROSS, J. The question presented in this case is whether the former wife is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") providing for an increase in her distributions from the former husband's Florida Retirement System (\"FRS\") pension based upon her proportionate share of any cost-of-living adjustment (\"COLA\") received by the former husband. We hold that the former wife's right to a COLA was a vested statutory right that accrued during the marriage, so the QDRO properly included COLAs. Therefore, we affirm. The parties married in 1999, and the former husband filed for dissolution of ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2479244-6caf-422f-a69e-a0d76989c3fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8595772-8595772","title":"CourtListener opinion 8595772","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: r a cost-of-living adjustment to the former wife on her proportionate share of any COLA received by the former husband: 9. Cost of Living Adjustment: The Plan Administrator shall increase the amount payable each month to the Alternate Payee based upon the Alternate Payee's proportionate share of any cost of living adjustments (COLA) received by the Participant. . . . The former husband preserved his objection to Paragraph 9 in the trial court. 2 The former husband now appeals the Amended QDRO, arguing that the final judgment of dissolution did not mention the existence of a COLA as a marital asset subject to distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bfacfb7-7c09-4a93-846d-054b07f8d805","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699","title":"CourtListener opinion 859699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 859699 Extracted case name: SCT JOAN WILLIAMS HOLLOMAN v. RONALD B. HOLLOMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 859699 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bfacfb7-7c09-4a93-846d-054b07f8d805","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699","title":"CourtListener opinion 859699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bfacfb7-7c09-4a93-846d-054b07f8d805","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699","title":"CourtListener opinion 859699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a one-half interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \\interpretation of a contract"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bfacfb7-7c09-4a93-846d-054b07f8d805","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-859699-859699","title":"CourtListener opinion 859699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \\interpretation of a contract"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 8598884 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 29524 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8598884 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ses. It also provided for Smith to be named the surviving spouse if the pension plan later was modified to provide for a surviving spouse benefit. -3- {¶ 5} On September 29, 1988, the domestic relations court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which restated the terms of the divorce decree regarding OP&F. Soon thereafter, the Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of OP&F, filed a motion in the domestic relations court seeking vacation of the QDRO on the ground that OP&F was expressly exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The domestic relations court agreed, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r is entitled to survivor benefits from OP&F. The following facts are undisputed. {¶ 3} Elaine Smith (\"Smith\") is the former spouse of Larry Smith, a retired police officer. The two married on July 13, 1963. In December 1983, Larry applied for disability retirement benefits from OP&F, then known as the Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund of Ohio. OP&F permits plan members to elect a retirement allowance payable for the retiree's lifetime or, instead, to receive an actuarial equivalent of his retirement allowance in a lesser amount payable for his life and continuing after his death to a surviving designated b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: -2- {¶ 1} Elaine Smith appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion for summary judgment and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Carolyn Farmer on Smith's claims related to Farmer's receipt of survivor benefits from the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund (\"OP&F\"). For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} This action concerns whether Smith or Farmer is entitled to survivor benefits from OP&F. The following facts are undisputed. {¶ 3} Elaine Smith (\"Smith\") is the former spouse of Larry Smith, a retired police officer. The two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af882aa5-cb4a-45ca-9fdf-db179a5947b7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-8598884-8598884","title":"CourtListener opinion 8598884","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29524 : v. : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: egarding OP&F. Soon thereafter, the Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of OP&F, filed a motion in the domestic relations court seeking vacation of the QDRO on the ground that OP&F was expressly exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The domestic relations court agreed, and on November 28, 1988, it filed an entry vacating the QDRO and ordering that Smith receive one-half of Larry's gross monthly benefit as spousal support. The entry did not mention the conditional surviving spouse benefit. {¶ 6} OP&F did not receive a copy of the 1988 divorce decree. However, it was provided cop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2383295b-d1f5-4566-832e-958b781baab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748","title":"CourtListener opinion 865748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"534 U.S. 473","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 865748 Extracted case name: DECEASED v. MISSISSIPPI DIVISION OF MEDICAID DATE OF JUDGMENT. Extracted reporter citation: 534 U.S. 473. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 865748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2383295b-d1f5-4566-832e-958b781baab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748","title":"CourtListener opinion 865748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"534 U.S. 473","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2383295b-d1f5-4566-832e-958b781baab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748","title":"CourtListener opinion 865748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"534 U.S. 473","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed public accountant regarding the Alfords' finances and the projected depletion of their income and assets once Mr. Alford was placed in a nursing home. At the close of the hearing, counsel for Mrs. Alford requested alternative relief in the form 2 of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), transferring Mr. Alford's retirement assets in the amount of $400,000 to Mrs. Alford. ¶4. The Division did not cross-examine Mrs. Alford or the accountant, maintaining the court lacked jurisdiction. The Division argued that it had sole authority and jurisdiction to consider the matter, and that the chancery court was limited to judicial review o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2383295b-d1f5-4566-832e-958b781baab8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865748-865748","title":"CourtListener opinion 865748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"534 U.S. 473","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: accountant regarding the Alfords' finances and the projected depletion of their income and assets once Mr. Alford was placed in a nursing home. At the close of the hearing, counsel for Mrs. Alford requested alternative relief in the form 2 of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), transferring Mr. Alford's retirement assets in the amount of $400,000 to Mrs. Alford. ¶4. The Division did not cross-examine Mrs. Alford or the accountant, maintaining the court lacked jurisdiction. The Division argued that it had sole authority and jurisdiction to consider the matter, and that the chancery court was limited to judicial review o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 865833 Extracted case name: R.K. v. J.K. Extracted reporter citation: 580 F.3d 1234. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 865833 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ment and contract of the parties that the Wife is to have all survivors' benefits otherwise accorded to her by law including, but not limited to, fifty-five percent (55%) of Husband's survivor annuity, upon his death from Civil Service Retirement System. A QDRO will be entered allowing Wife 50% of Husband's Military Retirement based upon Husband's years of military service during this marriage. A QDRO will be entered allowing wife 55% of Husband's Survivor Annuity upon his death from Civil Service Retirement System. After the hearing, the chancellor entered a qualified domestic-relations order (\"QDRO\"), dire"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: they were not specifically mentioned in the property settlement agreement and were not accorded to her ‘by law.'\" Williams, 2009 WL 1451342, at *5. ISSUES ¶3. Barbara's entitlement to the following is not at issue: (1) fifty percent of Julius's military-retirement benefits earned during the marriage and (2) fifty-five percent of Julius's civil-service survivor annuity plan. Thus, we are left with the following issues: I. Whether the chancellor erred in finding that Barbara was entitled to Julius's Military Survivor Benefit Plan. II. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorney fees. DISCUSSION 3 ¶4. \"When thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: judgment. Julius has worked as a policeman, postal carrier, and military reservist. After Julius married Wenoka Williams, Barbara moved to clarify judgment and/or for modification of the property-settlement agreement, specifically the paragraph entitled, \"Survivor Benefit for Wife.\" Julius retired from the reserves on May 19, 2007, and exercised his option to participate in the Military Survivor Benefit Plan (\"SBP\"), naming Wenoka as 2 the beneficiary. In June 2007, a hearing was held on Barbara's motion. At that hearing, this language was at issue: It is the agreement and contract of the parties that the Wife is to h"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae8e0e9c-16e9-4ed2-b738-d17bba4727b5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-865833-865833","title":"CourtListener opinion 865833","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"580 F.3d 1234","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 1983). Even though a small portion of the 2 The amount generally will be thirty-five to fifty-five percent of the monthly retirement pay depending on the age of the beneficiary. See 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1451(a)(2), 1451(f) (1998). 7 annuity was purchased with community property (the military-retirement benefits), that court held that the former wife's \"claim conflict[ed] with express terms of the SBP. A service member can provide the annuity only for his dependent children, provide the annuity for his wife, or elect not to participate in the plan at all. In any case, the decision is solely that of the service member.\" Id. at 7"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"179f828f-3989-44da-ae32-f6d67e6fdc29","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100","title":"CourtListener opinion 868100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 868100 Extracted case name: FILED v. MAY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 868100 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"179f828f-3989-44da-ae32-f6d67e6fdc29","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100","title":"CourtListener opinion 868100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"179f828f-3989-44da-ae32-f6d67e6fdc29","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100","title":"CourtListener opinion 868100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: uant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \\action upon a judgment or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"179f828f-3989-44da-ae32-f6d67e6fdc29","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100","title":"CourtListener opinion 868100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: County, Kathryn W. Foster, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded. ¶1 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \\action upon a judgment or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"179f828f-3989-44da-ae32-f6d67e6fdc29","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-868100-868100","title":"CourtListener opinion 868100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \\action upon a judgment or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 871547 Extracted reporter citation: 205 P.3d 548. Docket: SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 871547 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , the only orders that Aaron appears to challenge further are the family court's February 3, 2009 order on Bonnie's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale, and its February 25, 2009 order denying Aaron's Motion to Compel Compliance with Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Accordingly, Aaron's challenges to other family court orders are not discussed further. -12- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** February 3, 2009, the family court filed its Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale. The order stated, inter alia, that Aaron was \"not re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s. See Richter, 108 Hawai#i at 506-07, 122 P.3d at 286-87. In the instant case, the family court ordered, in pertinent part: [Aaron] shall pay to [Bonnie] her net share of her interest in the [marital residence] and her interest in [Aaron's] other deposit/retirement accounts after [Aaron's] interest in [Bonnie's] retirement accounts, deposit accounts and in Caplans have been set-off, with payment to be made by February 27, 2009 or the establishment of an escrow account by February 27, 2009 to effect such payment to [Bonnie] no later than March 27, 2009[.] Aaron argues that the Supplemental Divorce Decree did not requi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: orders that Aaron appears to challenge further are the family court's February 3, 2009 order on Bonnie's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale, and its February 25, 2009 order denying Aaron's Motion to Compel Compliance with Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Accordingly, Aaron's challenges to other family court orders are not discussed further. -12- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** February 3, 2009, the family court filed its Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale. The order stated, inter alia, that Aaron was \"not re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4f68b721-b463-40b0-b00d-3a8a9ee31db7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-871547-871547","title":"CourtListener opinion 871547","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 P.3d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , that no \"Marital Separate Property\" or appreciation on that property can ever be awarded to a non-owning spouse[?] B. Did the [ICA] commit grave error when it affirmed post-decree orders issued by the family court, without jurisdiction, which modified property division in the absence of a timely motion under [Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR)] Rule 59? -3- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** We hold that the ICA erred in stating that the family court has the \"authority to award Marital Separate Property to a non-owning spouse\" under Schiller. Kakinami, 2011 WL 1836718, at *2. As"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 873579 Extracted case name: EVELYN STEPHENS v. OPM. Docket: PH-0831-12-0106-I-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 873579 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed Mr. Stephens in July 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, in Alleghe- ny County, Pennsylvania (\"Court of Common Pleas\"). On February 4, 2000, the former couple agreed to an equita- ble distribution of marital property, each by duly signing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The Court of Common Pleas entered those orders. Pursuant to the QDROs, each spouse granted the other a portion of the retirement annuity each would enjoy upon retirement. Mr. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\"), and Ms. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: DRO: because Ms. Stephens's QDRO was not acceptable for processing by OPM in the first place, OPM should have rejected the QDRO without engaging in any interpretation of it. In January 1992, OPM proposed extensive regulations to govern Court Orders Affecting Retirement Benefits (the three types of retirement benefits being employee annui- ties, refunds of employee contributions, and survivor annuities). See Court Orders Affecting Retirement Bene- fits, 57 Fed. Reg. 120 (proposed Jan. 2, 1992) (to be codi- fied at 5 C.F.R. pt. 831 et al.). The proposed regulations defined as unprocessable by OPM all court orders labeled \"qualified"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Orders Affecting Retirement Bene- fits, 57 Fed. Reg. 120 (proposed Jan. 2, 1992) (to be codi- fied at 5 C.F.R. pt. 831 et al.). The proposed regulations defined as unprocessable by OPM all court orders labeled \"qualified domestic relations order\" or issued on ERISA forms. The reason for this proposed exclusion is that ERISA created the term QDRO to describe a court order that divides retirement benefits under ERISA plans. Those retirement benefits can differ from retirement EVELYN STEPHENS v. OPM 5 benefits under CSRS. As OPM explained in the final regulation, \"[w]e decided to prohibit use of this label because we ha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8aab3bad-516c-4f5d-823c-1e39f8b833a0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873579-873579","title":"CourtListener opinion 873579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"PH-0831-12-0106-I-1","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: phens in July 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, in Alleghe- ny County, Pennsylvania (\"Court of Common Pleas\"). On February 4, 2000, the former couple agreed to an equita- ble distribution of marital property, each by duly signing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The Court of Common Pleas entered those orders. Pursuant to the QDROs, each spouse granted the other a portion of the retirement annuity each would enjoy upon retirement. Mr. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System (\"PSERS\"), and Ms. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0afda803-8dc2-4ca5-afad-92e381d17cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622","title":"CourtListener opinion 873622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"200 Cal.App.4th 1401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 873622 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of BOYD KEVIN and VICKI L. WEAVER. BOYD KEVIN WEAVER. Extracted reporter citation: 200 Cal.App.4th 1401. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 873622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0afda803-8dc2-4ca5-afad-92e381d17cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622","title":"CourtListener opinion 873622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"200 Cal.App.4th 1401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0afda803-8dc2-4ca5-afad-92e381d17cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622","title":"CourtListener opinion 873622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"200 Cal.App.4th 1401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: file a written order until December 9, 2011. 2 order, commanding Vicki to pay $1,000 per month; (2) fixed child support arrears at $19,808 and ordered payment forthwith by Vicki to Boyd; (3) ordered Vicki to pay Boyd $875 for her share of preparing QDROs (Qualified Domestic Relations Orders); and (4) took costs, fees, and sanctions for the entire matter under submission. The trial court later awarded Boyd $20,000 for attorney fees. On October 21, 2011, Vicki filed a motion to set aside the trial court‘s child support order under the excusable neglect (or ―discretionary‖) provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 4733 and also filed a moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0afda803-8dc2-4ca5-afad-92e381d17cb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-873622-873622","title":"CourtListener opinion 873622","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"200 Cal.App.4th 1401","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: itten order until December 9, 2011. 2 order, commanding Vicki to pay $1,000 per month; (2) fixed child support arrears at $19,808 and ordered payment forthwith by Vicki to Boyd; (3) ordered Vicki to pay Boyd $875 for her share of preparing QDROs (Qualified Domestic Relations Orders); and (4) took costs, fees, and sanctions for the entire matter under submission. The trial court later awarded Boyd $20,000 for attorney fees. On October 21, 2011, Vicki filed a motion to set aside the trial court‘s child support order under the excusable neglect (or ―discretionary‖) provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 4733 and also filed a moti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 874263 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 219 P.3d 448. Docket: 35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 874263 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: loyed by United Airlines and has a pension, either with United Airlines, or now with Pension Benefit Guarantee Association. Wife shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the benefit accumulated by Husband during the marriage to be set over to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After the Decree was entered and the Agreement was approved by the magistrate court, Borley filed a ―Motion to Divide Omitted Asset‖ in which she asked the court to divide both the convertible notes and the stock allocations obtained by Smith in February and March of 2006. 2 Smith filed an answer and, after numerous procedural maneuvers, the court dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ion. I. Facts and Procedural History Smith and Borley were married on August 1, 1988. Smith started working as a United Airlines (United) pilot in 1990. In 1992, United filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, United pilots lost their Defined Benefits Retirement Plan (A Plan), but were otherwise compensated by insurance payments through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and certain convertible notes as follows: 1 7. Convertible Notes. In the event that the A Plan is terminated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1341 or § 1342 following judicial approval of such termination, the Revised 2003 Pilot Agreement and t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ith started working as a United Airlines (United) pilot in 1990. In 1992, United filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, United pilots lost their Defined Benefits Retirement Plan (A Plan), but were otherwise compensated by insurance payments through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and certain convertible notes as follows: 1 7. Convertible Notes. In the event that the A Plan is terminated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1341 or § 1342 following judicial approval of such termination, the Revised 2003 Pilot Agreement and the Plan of Reorganization shall provide for the issuance of $550 Million of UAL co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dfab8df3-0899-4c67-a806-61981b4ece23","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-874263-874263","title":"CourtListener opinion 874263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 P.3d 448","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nited Airlines and has a pension, either with United Airlines, or now with Pension Benefit Guarantee Association. Wife shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the benefit accumulated by Husband during the marriage to be set over to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After the Decree was entered and the Agreement was approved by the magistrate court, Borley filed a ―Motion to Divide Omitted Asset‖ in which she asked the court to divide both the convertible notes and the stock allocations obtained by Smith in February and March of 2006. 2 Smith filed an answer and, after numerous procedural maneuvers, the court dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 883030 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARGARET H. BOHARSKI. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 92-055. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 883030 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ict Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40 days, with 10 days suspended. In this same order, the court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. 5 lO562(d) (3). A QDRO is a method of intercepting payments intended for one spouse and then directing these payments to the other spouse. A QDRO must be made pursuant to the existing state domestic relations laws. 29 U.S.C. 5 1056. The QDRO in this case directed that George's union pension disabilit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: at all of his income was disability income which was exempt and he refused to pay the temporary maintenance. George's income consisted of monthly social security disability payments of $906, monthly workers' compensation benefits of $500.40, and monthly union pension disability payments of $363.50 at the time of final decree and slightly less at time of temporary order. George had no other sources of income. Pursuant to a motion by Margaret, on September 19, 1990, the District Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tember 19, 1990, the District Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40 days, with 10 days suspended. In this same order, the court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. 5 lO562(d) (3). A QDRO is a method of intercepting payments intended for one spouse and then directing these payments to the other spouse. A QDRO must be made pursuant to the existing state domestic relations laws. 29 U.S.C. 5 1056. The QDRO in this case directed that George's union pension dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"efc78021-b82e-48dd-af3e-9724fcca0c73","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-883030-883030","title":"CourtListener opinion 883030","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"92-055","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: efits to George. The District Court then awarded the union pension disability benefits to Margaret, with the QDRO to remain in place. Additionally, George was to pay to Margaret the sum of $298.33 per month for 3 6 months out of income received by him, as an equitable distribution of property and as maintenance. The time period of payment was made to coincide with her eligibility in the future for social security benefits. The court also found that George could make all payments and maintain his lifestyle and maintain his standard of living. George brought this appeal from the District Court's entry of the decree of dissolution conte"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706bf203-4923-4021-ac11-dd2cf209802e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478","title":"CourtListener opinion 885478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99-080","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 885478 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LINDA K. HARKIN. Docket: 99-080. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 885478 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706bf203-4923-4021-ac11-dd2cf209802e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478","title":"CourtListener opinion 885478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99-080","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706bf203-4923-4021-ac11-dd2cf209802e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478","title":"CourtListener opinion 885478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99-080","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\\Jack\\\")"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"706bf203-4923-4021-ac11-dd2cf209802e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885478-885478","title":"CourtListener opinion 885478","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"99-080","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\\Jack\\\")"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 885737 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of BETH LAUREN MORGENSTERN. Extracted reporter citation: 893 P.2d 860. Docket: 00-605. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 885737 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the monthly support ordered was excessive. On June 23, 2000, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: urt issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculated on an annual basis at the request of either party. ¶9"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculated on an annual basis at the request o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"54e0626d-d9e6-4836-83fb-4f7aab588290","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-885737-885737","title":"CourtListener opinion 885737","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"00-605","extracted_reporter_citation":"893 P.2d 860","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y support ordered was excessive. On June 23, 2000, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"363e4f2d-abfe-465f-9470-6a7b704b290b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400","title":"CourtListener opinion 887400","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-050","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 887400 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Czapranski. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 04-050. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 887400 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"363e4f2d-abfe-465f-9470-6a7b704b290b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400","title":"CourtListener opinion 887400","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-050","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"363e4f2d-abfe-465f-9470-6a7b704b290b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-887400-887400","title":"CourtListener opinion 887400","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"04-050","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: peal of that part of the Order of December 30, 2002, which 5 temporarily changed residential custody. However, the appeal was dismissed by order of this Court, holding that the contempt order was not reviewable on appeal as it was not attached to a final domestic relations order because the temporary custody order was not a final order. Order of April 8, 2003, Cause No. 03-070, In re the Parenting of the Child of D.D. ¶21 This litigation then proceeded on Father's motion to change residential custody. Discovery was conducted, motions were filed and ruled on, and preliminary hearings held. Over the course of the parties' parent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a277997-1ab9-4824-937f-a0fe16858d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365","title":"CourtListener opinion 888365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"107 P.3d 488","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 888365 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Carter. Extracted reporter citation: 107 P.3d 488. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888365 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a277997-1ab9-4824-937f-a0fe16858d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365","title":"CourtListener opinion 888365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"107 P.3d 488","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a277997-1ab9-4824-937f-a0fe16858d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365","title":"CourtListener opinion 888365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"107 P.3d 488","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: les to avoid these tax liabilities by transferring a distribution of a lump sum to the ex-spouse. 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(6). Internal Revenue Code § 408(d)(6) provides that distributions under a divorce instrument, such as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) (see 26 U.S.C. § 71(b)(2)(A)), are not considered a taxable transfer. If this amount were distributed to Ron from Julie's retirement account by use of a QDRO, she would not suffer adverse tax consequences. ¶46 Even in his proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law filed after the trial, Ron requested a distribution of retirement assets by entry"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a277997-1ab9-4824-937f-a0fe16858d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365","title":"CourtListener opinion 888365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"107 P.3d 488","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a parenting plan for their two minor children. ¶2 Ron appeals the provisions of the decree ordering that Julie shall have primary custody of the parties' two minor children during the school year in North Carolina. He also appeals the distribution of the retirement account portion of the marital estate because it denied him a percentage of the increase in Julie's retirement account that accrued between the time of the parties' separation and the time of the decree. ¶3 Julie cross-appeals, asserting that she should be able to fulfill her monetary obligation by distributing to Ron pre-tax retirement funds instead of cash an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a277997-1ab9-4824-937f-a0fe16858d99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888365-888365","title":"CourtListener opinion 888365","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"107 P.3d 488","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: t shall consider those contributions of the other spouse to the marriage, including: (a) the nonmonetary contribution of a homemaker; (b) the extent to which such contributions have facilitated the maintenance of this property; and (c) whether or not the property division serves as an alternative to maintenance arrangements. ¶36 As a general rule, the value of the marital estate should be determined at or near the time of dissolution; however, the unique circumstances of marital relationships can modify this generally accepted date for the valuation of assets. In re Marriage of Hochhalter, 2001 MT 268, ¶ 17, 307 Mont. 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a225d3f6-0a6d-489d-b89d-afa0d9b193e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417","title":"CourtListener opinion 888417","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of requests to the","extracted_reporter_citation":"941 P.2d 441","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 888417 Extracted reporter citation: 941 P.2d 441. Docket: of requests to the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888417 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a225d3f6-0a6d-489d-b89d-afa0d9b193e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417","title":"CourtListener opinion 888417","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of requests to the","extracted_reporter_citation":"941 P.2d 441","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a225d3f6-0a6d-489d-b89d-afa0d9b193e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417","title":"CourtListener opinion 888417","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of requests to the","extracted_reporter_citation":"941 P.2d 441","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ing someone step through numerous individual case files to find them. Recognizing that orders, decrees, final judgments and other court-created documents can contain confidential information that should be protected, such as financial accounts numbers in qualified domestic relations orders, the Task Force decided that these documents should not be placed on the Internet by any court office until electronic filing and guidelines for digital documents have been established and approved by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that within a year or two there will be sufficient understanding and tools available for privacy protection that these do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a225d3f6-0a6d-489d-b89d-afa0d9b193e3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888417-888417","title":"CourtListener opinion 888417","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of requests to the","extracted_reporter_citation":"941 P.2d 441","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e step through numerous individual case files to find them. Recognizing that orders, decrees, final judgments and other court-created documents can contain confidential information that should be protected, such as financial accounts numbers in qualified domestic relations orders, the Task Force decided that these documents should not be placed on the Internet by any court office until electronic filing and guidelines for digital documents have been established and approved by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that within a year or two there will be sufficient understanding and tools available for privacy protection that these do"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 888501 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TED GREGORY McNEA. Extracted reporter citation: 95 P.3d 694. Docket: and result in this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888501 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: or purposes of § 27-2-201(1), MCA, because Miller's motion fell \"more under the category of [a] discovery [device], rather than an action on a judgment . . . . Miller is requesting a release of account information. This is quite different than requesting a QDRO or 4 requesting the Court enforce the Final Decree entered into on December 30, 1994.\" The District Court also concluded that the period of limitation began to run on December 30, 1994, because Miller was entitled to her portion of McNea's retirement accounts immediately upon issuance of the divorce decree. The District Court's conclusion was based o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d Miller received a decree of dissolution of their marriage from the District Court on December 30, 1994. The decree approved a Property Settlement Agreement which included a provision for the distribution to Miller of 50 percent of McNea's I.R.A. and 401K retirement accounts, then totaling approximately $43,000. Following the dissolution, Miller did not take any action to enforce distribution of the 2 retirement accounts until October 8, 2002, when she filed a Motion for Release of Account Information. Neither McNea nor the District Court responded to that motion, and no further action occurred thereafter until May 16, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t to a percentage of McNea's retirement, the ten-year statute of limitations began to run on December 30, 1994—the date the decree of dissolution was issued. Whereas the retirement account at issue in Marriage of Weber was a Civil Service Retirement System pension, and thus was a \"defined benefit plan\" that could not be collected until the spouse earning those benefits had retired, Marriage of Weber, ¶ 27, here the \"defined contribution plans\" were available immediately following the dissolution, because the value of such plans was not dependent on McNea's retirement, but rather could be calculated immediately an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"27427971-74aa-4ed8-9a88-76cda953d2e9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-888501-888501","title":"CourtListener opinion 888501","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and result in this","extracted_reporter_citation":"95 P.3d 694","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ea and Miller received a decree of dissolution of their marriage from the District Court on December 30, 1994. The decree approved a Property Settlement Agreement which included a provision for the distribution to Miller of 50 percent of McNea's I.R.A. and 401K retirement accounts, then totaling approximately $43,000. Following the dissolution, Miller did not take any action to enforce distribution of the 2 retirement accounts until October 8, 2002, when she filed a Motion for Release of Account Information. Neither McNea nor the District Court responded to that motion, and no further action occurred thereaf"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 892494 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 739 P.2d 974. Docket: of years Husband participated. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 892494 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lves the division of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-rule method of calculating Wife's community share. After the California court set aside its 1994 judgment as to all its 1 provisions except the portion dissolving the marriage and also set aside the QDRO in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: F LUNA COUNTY James T. Martin, District Judge Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. Patrick L. McDaniel Albuquerque, NM 87190 for Appellee Kretek Law Office, LLC Charles C. Kretek Deming, NM for Appellant OPINION SUTIN, Judge. {1} This case involves the division of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-ru"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: marriage, the total number of years of credited service, and the qualifying salary levels under the PERA statute.\" Accordingly, the court calculated that Wife was entitled to a community share of $1025.90 per month based on one half of Husband's gross monthly pension payments of $4351.66 times the ratio of time of credited service during the marriage (9.66 years) divided by the total time of credited service (20.5 years). The court granted Wife a judgment for \"arrearages for twenty-nine months . . . through December[] 2007, with the monthly amount of the arrearages to be determined by [the] PERA in 1 The parties and t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7c881d41-98c5-490f-9af7-cc4d05cb9753","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892494-892494","title":"CourtListener opinion 892494","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of years Husband participated","extracted_reporter_citation":"739 P.2d 974","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ivision of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-rule method of calculating Wife's community share. After the California court set aside its 1994 judgment as to all its 1 provisions except the portion dissolving the marriage and also set aside the QDRO in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 892525 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lehman. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of months of marriage and participating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 892525 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: grade cost of living and so it's a smaller percentage times a higher monthly benefit amount. Wife's counsel also indicated that the formula used \"typically . . . included in most cases . . ., not only the marital settlement agreement, but it's also in the qualified domestic relations order, if there is one\" and that the formula \"was negotiated, it's in the [MSA].\" In addition, Wife's counsel explained: [W]e wrote in, in the formula, that the marital months were 192, according to my math [Husband] spent a total of 824 months earning this retirement. . . . [S]o that with my math, came out to be 23.2 percent is [Wife's] share of the gross mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. Thomas C. Montoya Albuquerque, NM for Appellant OPINION SUTIN, Judge. {1} This case involves enforcement of a 1994 marital settlement agreement and a 1995 domestic relations order relating to a wife's entitlement to a husband's retirement benefits. We are mainly 1 concerned with two issues, namely, (1) when the wife was entitled to begin receiving benefits, and (2) how to calculate the amount of benefits to be paid to the wife. Based on its interpretations of the documents, the district court determined that the wife was entitled to receive benefits starting at the husband's first retirement elig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: findings of fact and one conclusion of law requested by Wife. Husband's interpretation of limiting . . . [W]ife's calculation of retirement [benefits] at the time of the divorce would deprive [W]ife of the natural and expected increase in the value of the pension over the years following the divorce. [] The \"time rule\" theory of division of retirement is applicable and equitable here, and was intended by the parties as reflected by the entire formula for division of the postal service retirement. See In re Marriage of Lehman, 18 Cal[.] 4[th] 169, 955 P.2d 451 (1998), and In re Marriage of Judd, 68 Cal. App[.] 3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a072d364-c906-4865-8898-7ea2d9ae9a0a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-892525-892525","title":"CourtListener opinion 892525","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage and participating","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: reached thirty years of service with the United States Postal Service and age fifty- five. The thirty years of service were a combination of Husband's service before marriage and after divorce, and community service during marriage. Provisions of the MSA and Domestic Relations Order 2 {5} In Section II(A)(5) of the MSA, as part of the parties' compromised distribution of the community property, Wife was to receive the following as her separate property. One-half of the community interest in Husband's retirement plan with [the] United States Postal Service through the date of August 31, 1994, to be determined in accord with the f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 894014 Extracted reporter citation: 216 P.3d 804. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 894014 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms \"401(k) plan\" and \"pension plan\" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to the pension 4 1 plan, which is the plan that Wife has no interest in, as the \"Savings Plan\" in the 2 memorandum in opposition. [See MIO 3, first full paragraph and there"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the district court's decision to award spousal support for the 9 first time in a situation where the parties were married for about twenty-two years, no 10 spousal support was awarded in the final decree, and the husband's intention to 11 convert all the retirement benefit into disability pay in the near future would have 12 effectively eliminated the wife's award of her share of the husband's retirement 13 benefit, which was the only significant asset of the marriage. Rhoades, 2004-NMCA- 14 020, ¶ 15. The circumstances of this case are different. The parties in this case were 15 married only six years; Wife's illness, an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the final decree; 14 and each party receives one-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms \"401(k) plan\" and \"pension plan\" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to the pension 4 1 plan, which is the plan that Wife has no interest in, as the \"Savings Plan\" in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c35b93e7-0e32-43f3-b6f1-5f12a3798c9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894014-894014","title":"CourtListener opinion 894014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"216 P.3d 804","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): debts of the parties are 13 divided in accordance with a property and debt worksheet attached to the final decree; 14 and each party receives one-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms \"401(k) plan\" and \"pension plan\" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"590a7e63-4d84-4675-af6e-5eccc430ce01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068","title":"CourtListener opinion 894068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"860 P.2d 182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 894068 Extracted reporter citation: 860 P.2d 182. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 894068 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"590a7e63-4d84-4675-af6e-5eccc430ce01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068","title":"CourtListener opinion 894068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"860 P.2d 182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"590a7e63-4d84-4675-af6e-5eccc430ce01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068","title":"CourtListener opinion 894068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"860 P.2d 182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l age, the work related day care 12 expense will terminate or be substantially reduced, and [Husband] will 13 have the means to pay to [Wife] her then interest in his PERA benefits, 14 whether he has elected to retire or not. 15 19. Once [Husband] retires, a QDRO can be entered to pay directly to 16 [Wife], her then community interest. 17 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The district court then entered the following 18 pertinent conclusions of law: 19 2. The [c]ourt finds that based on the individual circumstances of this 20 divorcing couple, it is not possible or practicable to exercise the 21 preferred metho"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"590a7e63-4d84-4675-af6e-5eccc430ce01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068","title":"CourtListener opinion 894068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"860 P.2d 182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: NM 12 for Appellee 13 Hunter Law Firm 14 Colin Hunter 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VIGIL, Judge. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 1 Husband appeals from an order of the district court determining Wife's interest 2 in Husband's PERA retirement account. We reverse and remand for further 3 proceedings. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 The judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage and custody was filed 6 on October 24, 2008, with the district court reserving jurisdiction to determine Wife's 7 interest in Husband's PERA retirement account at a status hearing in May 2009. 8 Following the status confe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"590a7e63-4d84-4675-af6e-5eccc430ce01","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-894068-894068","title":"CourtListener opinion 894068","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"860 P.2d 182","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to treat them as all other 12 community assets are treated on dissolution—namely, to value, divide, 13 and distribute them (or other assets of equivalent value) to the divorcing 14 spouses. We realize that in some cases, given the innumerable variations 15 in pension plans and the infinite variety in the circumstances of 16 individual divorcing couples, it will not be possible or practicable to 17 achieve this preferred method of distribution and that other methods, 18 including the reserved jurisdiction [or] pay as it comes in method, will 19 have to be utilized. 20 .... 21 7. Dr. Myers found that the present value o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 896843 Extracted reporter citation: 585 N.W.2d 561. Docket: 20000298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 896843 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bution, the court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for eight years, and then $400 per month in permanent spousal support thereafter until Eleanor remarr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n the oldest child reaches the age of majority. Concerning the property distribution, the court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for ei"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for eight years, and then $400 per month in permanent spousal support thereafter until Eleanor remarr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d9109cd-68d6-4e04-8c1e-07a0d80d8259","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-896843-896843","title":"CourtListener opinion 896843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20000298","extracted_reporter_citation":"585 N.W.2d 561","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ging the parties' joint checking account. [¶5] In a divorce, the trial court must distribute the marital property equitably between the parties. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24. All of the parties' assets, regardless of the source, must be considered to ensure an equitable distribution of the marital property. Kautzman v. Kautzman , 1998 ND 192, ¶ 10, 585 N.W.2d 561. A trial court's distribution of marital property need not be equal to be equitable, but the court must explain any substantial disparity. Corbett v. Corbett , 2001 ND 113, ¶ 12, 628 N.W.2d 312. In distributing marital property, the trial court must apply the gui"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"254dadd0-608d-40e0-86fb-3fb5ef9df7f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014","title":"CourtListener opinion 897014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20010186","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 690","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 897014 Extracted reporter citation: 626 N.W.2d 690. Docket: 20010186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897014 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"254dadd0-608d-40e0-86fb-3fb5ef9df7f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014","title":"CourtListener opinion 897014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20010186","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 690","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"254dadd0-608d-40e0-86fb-3fb5ef9df7f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014","title":"CourtListener opinion 897014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20010186","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 690","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: udgment plus any additions and interest on the money or ∙ 7% interest on the $25,000.00 from January 25, 2000 until the Defendant transfers the money in cash, should he be forced to do so to comply with the order of the Court if he is unable to secure a QDRO from the retirement account Plus, the Defendant shall be ordered to pay an additional $500.00 in attorney fees and costs within 30 days of this order necessitated by his failure to abide by the order of the Court dated January 3, 2000. The court also ordered Marion Harger to turn over completed forms showing proof that he had maintained a $100,000 lif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"254dadd0-608d-40e0-86fb-3fb5ef9df7f8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897014-897014","title":"CourtListener opinion 897014","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20010186","extracted_reporter_citation":"626 N.W.2d 690","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: arting with a term or death benefit of $100,000.00, . . . naming the minor child as beneficiary,\" and to provide Kathleen Harger proof of insurance. As part of the property distribution, Kathleen Harger was awarded $25,000 to be \"rolled over from defendant's retirement account, subject to tax consequences, if any.\" After the parties' separation, Marion Harger, who had been employed as an emergency medical technician, left Williston and moved to Ohio. [¶3] On May 19, 2000, Kathleen Harger moved to modify Marion Harger's child support obligation to conform with the current child support guidelines and moved to hold him in cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 897138 Extracted reporter citation: 561 N.W.2d 644. Docket: 20020168. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897138 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er to accomplish the retirement split. The court entered an order on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the 80/20 percent allocation. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] On March 1, 2002, Eva filed a motion to enforce the retirement split under the divorce judgment, requesting the court to order Robert's attorney to prepare an appropriate QDRO or to provide information necessar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: fendant and appellee. Giese v. Giese No. 20020168 Kapsner, Justice. [¶1] Robert Giese appealed from orders of the district court denying his demand for a change of judge, granting Eva Giese's motion to enforce a prior judgment dividing Robert's retirement account between the parties, denying Robert's request for reconsideration of the issue, and denying Robert's motion for attorney fees. We affirm. I [¶2] Robert and Eva Giese were divorced on March 26, 1998, after a long-term marriage. The divorce decree awarded Eva twenty percent of Robert's employee retirement account and directed Robert's attorney to pre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mplish the retirement split. The court entered an order on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the 80/20 percent allocation. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] On March 1, 2002, Eva filed a motion to enforce the retirement split under the divorce judgment, requesting the court to order Robert's attorney to prepare an appropriate QDRO or to provide information necessar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1d647fe9-bb9b-4d89-a26b-d5e8343a1f83","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897138-897138","title":"CourtListener opinion 897138","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20020168","extracted_reporter_citation":"561 N.W.2d 644","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: a change of judge may be made after the judge sought to be disqualified has ruled upon any matter pertaining to the action or proceeding in which the demanding party was heard or had an opportunity to be heard. Any proceeding to modify an order for alimony, property division, or child support pursuant to section 14-05-24 or an order for child custody pursuant to section 14-05-22 must be considered a proceeding separate from the original action and the fact that the judge sought to be disqualified made any ruling in the original action does not bar a demand for a change of judge. The purpose of this statute is to allow a part"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 897405 Extracted reporter citation: 653 N.W.2d 663. Docket: 20030278. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897405 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the eighty/twenty percent allocation of the account employing the value as of March 26, 1998. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] Robert Giese retired on November 1, 2001, and began receiving monthly retirement benefits. Eva Giese did not receive her share of the benefits. [¶4] After this Court filed its opinion in Giese v. Giese"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ice. [¶1] Robert D. Giese appealed from orders of the district court holding him in contempt and awarding his former spouse, Eva Giese, damages for Robert's intentional failure to comply with the provisions of the parties' divorce decree dividing Robert's retirement benefits. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Robert Giese in contempt and did not err in awarding damages, including costs and attorney fees, to Eva Giese. .We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions that the district court amend its orders to permit Robert Giese to make a lump sum payment of the damage award a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: rcent portion of the retirement benefit was not made contingent upon effecting an acceptable QDRO. A QDRO is a judgment, decree, or order, relating to child support, spousal support, or marital property rights, which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan. See Chapman v. Wells , 557 N.W.2d 725, 727 n.1 (N.D. 1996). Eva Giese's right to receive a twenty percent share of Robert Giese's retirement benefit was created by and made a part of her property award under the March 26, 1998, divorce judgment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37c277a8-106f-421c-87c7-4a62789d02a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897405-897405","title":"CourtListener opinion 897405","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030278","extracted_reporter_citation":"653 N.W.2d 663","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ary 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the eighty/twenty percent allocation of the account employing the value as of March 26, 1998. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] Robert Giese retired on November 1, 2001, and began receiving monthly retirement benefits. Eva Giese did not receive her share of the benefits. [¶4] After this Court filed its opinion in Giese v. Giese"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af440159-81a9-47a3-b424-0adad155e1c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409","title":"CourtListener opinion 897409","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030339","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.W.2d 780","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 897409 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.W.2d 780. Docket: 20030339. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897409 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af440159-81a9-47a3-b424-0adad155e1c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409","title":"CourtListener opinion 897409","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030339","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.W.2d 780","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af440159-81a9-47a3-b424-0adad155e1c3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897409-897409","title":"CourtListener opinion 897409","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20030339","extracted_reporter_citation":"671 N.W.2d 780","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":5,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: Filed 3/23/04 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2004 ND 59___ Aaron James Johnson, Petitioner and Appellee v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellant No. 20030339 Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Mikal Simonson, Judge. REVERSED. Opinion of the Court by Sandstrom, Justice. Justin D. Roness (appeared), Thomas A. Dickson (on brief), and Timothy Q. Purdon (on brief), Dickson & Purdon, 107 West Main Avenue, Suite 150, P.O. Box 1896, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-1896, for petitioner and appellee. Reid A. Brady, Assistant Attorney General (on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"addcd5af-14de-432f-aa2c-4dee712d656e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893","title":"CourtListener opinion 897893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20050328","extracted_reporter_citation":"688 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 897893 Extracted reporter citation: 688 N.W.2d 402. Docket: 20050328. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897893 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"addcd5af-14de-432f-aa2c-4dee712d656e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893","title":"CourtListener opinion 897893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20050328","extracted_reporter_citation":"688 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"addcd5af-14de-432f-aa2c-4dee712d656e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893","title":"CourtListener opinion 897893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20050328","extracted_reporter_citation":"688 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s 401(k) plan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has \"a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a loan of $11,233.77 leaving a net value of $42,387.14. The Court awards [Hoffer] 65% of the net value ($27,551.64).\" A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") authorized the administrator of Roth's 401(k) plan to hold $27,551.64 for Hoffer. [¶3] In October 2004, Hoffer moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to amend the judgment, claiming there was a clerical mistake because the judgment did not accurately reflect the amount of money she was to receive from Roth's 401(k) plan. Hoffer claimed Roth's employer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"addcd5af-14de-432f-aa2c-4dee712d656e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893","title":"CourtListener opinion 897893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20050328","extracted_reporter_citation":"688 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): om an order denying his post-judgment motion. We affirm, concluding the district court did not err in granting Hoffer's motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to correct a clerical mistake in the initial judgment regarding the distribution of the proceeds of Roth's 401(k) plan. I [¶2] In Roth v. Hoffer , 2004 ND 72, ¶ 3, 688 N.W.2d 402, cert. denied , 543 U.S. 936 (2004), we summarily affirmed Roth's appeal from a July 2003 divorce judgment. The judgment identified Roth's 401(k) plan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has \"a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a l"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"addcd5af-14de-432f-aa2c-4dee712d656e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-897893-897893","title":"CourtListener opinion 897893","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20050328","extracted_reporter_citation":"688 N.W.2d 402","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has \"a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a loan of $11,233.77 leaving a net value of $42,387.14. The Court awards [Hoffer] 65% of the net value ($27,551.64).\" A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") authorized the administrator of Roth's 401(k) plan to hold $27,551.64 for Hoffer. [¶3] In October 2004, Hoffer moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to amend the judgment, claiming there was a clerical mistake because the judgment did not accurately reflect the amount of money she was to receive from Roth's 401(k) plan. Hoffer claimed Roth's employer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 898536 Extracted reporter citation: 747 N.W.2d 85. Docket: 20080174. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 898536 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rg. A review of the property division reveals Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ls Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id. The distric"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: iew of the property division reveals Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a23c0077-37fd-47c2-b1b3-46a0098a6121","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898536-898536","title":"CourtListener opinion 898536","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20080174","extracted_reporter_citation":"747 N.W.2d 85","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: sis of Sherri Lindberg's underemployment other than that she is capable of earning $20,000 per year, nor her need for spousal support or Chris Lindberg's ability to pay spousal support. We have said, \"We will not set aside the trial court's determinations on property division or spousal support for failure to explicitly state the basis for its findings if that basis is reasonably discernible by deduction or inference.\" Routledge v. Routledge , 377 N.W.2d 542, 545 n.1 (N.D. 1985); Meyer v. Meyer , 2004 ND 89, ¶ 23, 679 N.W.2d 273 (Maring, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). We are unable to discern the basi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 898957 Extracted reporter citation: 676 N.W.2d 794. Docket: 20100053. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 898957 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt accounts with Piper, Jaffray, and Aid Association Lutherans . . . .\" (Emphasis added.) [¶3] Between the entry of the divorce judgment and 2009, Mary Blomdahl did not execute on the judgment, commence a separate action on the judgment, or obtain a qualified domestic relations order. In January 2009, Mary Blomdahl demanded the 90 percent interest in the retirement accounts, and Russell Blomdahl refused. In April 2009, Mary Blomdahl moved the district court for an order to show cause under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1 to find Russell Blomdahl in contempt and to enforce the distribution of the interest in the retirement account awarded in the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: annot be maintained based on a divorce judgment that expired after ten years without being renewed. I [¶2] Russell Blomdahl and Mary Blomdahl entered a stipulation that was incorporated into a February 1993 divorce judgment, which provided: \"9. Retirement Accounts . [Mary Blomdahl] shall have sole and exclusive use, control and possession of the retirement, savings, and checking accounts currently held solely in her name. [Russell Blomdahl] shall have sole and exclusive use, possession and control of the retirement, savings, checking, and insurance accounts solely in his name with the exception that [Mary Blom"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: stablished control by obtaining a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") or by \"taking legal or other action to assert that control, even if that meant some financial penalty for early withdrawal.\" In addition, the trial court concluded that \"[u]nlike a pension plan that had not yet matured, these [two retirement] accounts could have been accessed and exclusively controlled by Mary [Blomdahl] at the time of judgment.\" Neither the law, the record, nor public policy supports the trial court's conclusion. [¶21] Our Court has held that when a divorce judgment provides for payments of child or spousal support in i"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"003bfd1b-6f61-4383-9114-c8aa06f248fb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-898957-898957","title":"CourtListener opinion 898957","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"20100053","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 N.W.2d 794","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: entered as soon as possible after entry of the divorce decree). Thus, the trial court erred by shifting the responsibility for obtaining a QDRO from the trial court that entered the 1993 divorce decree to Mary Blomdahl, a party to the decree. Further, under ERISA, there is no statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO. See Jordan , 147 S.W.3d at 260 (noting the intentional absence of a statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO under ERISA); see also Marshall v. Priess , 99 S.W.3d 150, 157 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) (holding the entry of QDRO is not subject to statute of limitations on enforcemen"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 901472 Extracted reporter citation: 132 F3d 1225. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 901472 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to the original intent of the court or the parties. See Antepenko v. Antepenko, 584 So2d 836 (AlaCivApp 1991) (omission from decree of award of farm equipment to husband was correctible under Rule 60(a)); Ozment v. Ozment, 11 P3d 635, 639 (OKCivApp 2000) (QDRO); Brooks v. Brooks, 864 SW2d 645, 647 (TexCtApp 1993) (trial court properly corrected divorce judgment to effectuate judge's intention to grant husband half of wife's retirement benefits); Spomer v. Spomer, 580 P2d 1146, 1149-50 (Wyo 1978) (clarifying order properly entered as correction under Rule 60(a) to resolve whether husband's obligation under dec"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: f making a property division. Moreover, prior to making that property division, Judge Grosshans was informed of the Act, which specifically required a court order or spousal agreement to divest Sally of her future proportionate share of the Foreign Service retirement benefits. He was also informed in Sally Nist's pretrial briefs that she had rights \"under federal law, including the survivor's benefit and a certain percentage.\" Therefore, Judge Grosshans' use of the present cash value and his failure to provide a divestiture clause when he divided the then existing value of the marital estate created uncertainty concerning"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RHENRY, Justice. [¶1.] Ted and Sally Nist were divorced by a judgment and decree of divorce entered on January 19, 1996. Nine years later, Ted sought an order amending the judgment to state expressly that Sally is not entitled to a pro rata share of Ted's pension and survivor benefits under the Foreign Service Act. The trial court granted Ted's motion and amended the judgment nunc pro tunc. Sally appeals. We reverse and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [¶2.] Ted and Sally Nist were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, Ted served in the federal Foreign Service. After eleven years of marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba1c7aa4-fc7d-47ab-b092-5bfa9b1f0590","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-901472-901472","title":"CourtListener opinion 901472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"132 F3d 1225","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ice. [¶1.] Ted and Sally Nist were divorced by a judgment and decree of divorce entered on January 19, 1996. Nine years later, Ted sought an order amending the judgment to state expressly that Sally is not entitled to a pro rata share of Ted's pension and survivor benefits under the Foreign Service Act. The trial court granted Ted's motion and amended the judgment nunc pro tunc. Sally appeals. We reverse and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [¶2.] Ted and Sally Nist were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, Ted served in the federal Foreign Service. After eleven years of marriage, Ted filed for divo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9247543 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of HOLLY HERBERS and TODD ERIK FERRARI. HOLLY HERBERS FERRARI. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: and obtain a. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9247543 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s for clarity and intend no disrespect. 2 including the family home, personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, business interests, and retirement benefits. Holly's pension plan from Pfizer was to be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with each party receiving a community interest pursuant to the \" ‘[t]ime rule.' \" Todd's \"Naval Military Service Retirement Plan\" was also addressed: \"The community interest shall be equitably divided pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, § 641, and revised § 624, of the NDAA of 2018: The amount of retired pay to which Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dent. This family law appeal presents a question of contract interpretation. Ending their twenty year marriage, Holly and Todd Ferrari stipulated how to divide their community assets in a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 Among those assets were military retirement benefits accrued during Todd's many years of military service. With Todd expecting to retire from the U.S. Navy in two years, the MSA referenced some relevant statutory criteria, expressed an intention to divide the pension \"equitably,\" and fixed a dollar amount of $2,551 that Holly would receive each month. Later claiming the inputs used to derive that number were"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Among those assets were military retirement benefits accrued during Todd's many years of military service. With Todd expecting to retire from the U.S. Navy in two years, the MSA referenced some relevant statutory criteria, expressed an intention to divide the pension \"equitably,\" and fixed a dollar amount of $2,551 that Holly would receive each month. Later claiming the inputs used to derive that number were off, Todd successfully moved to reduce Holly's share. Reasoning that the parties sought an equitable division of the military pension pursuant to a statutory formula that factored in a servicemember's retired base p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"23946a20-b454-47e3-92f8-a5e439ba6a3e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9247543-9247543","title":"CourtListener opinion 9247543","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and obtain a","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: arties by their first names for clarity and intend no disrespect. 2 including the family home, personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, business interests, and retirement benefits. Holly's pension plan from Pfizer was to be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with each party receiving a community interest pursuant to the \" ‘[t]ime rule.' \" Todd's \"Naval Military Service Retirement Plan\" was also addressed: \"The community interest shall be equitably divided pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, § 641, and revised § 624, of the NDAA of 2018: The amount of retired pay to which H"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9297204 Extracted case name: ANGELA MARIE HEISIG v. ANDREW CARL HEISIG. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9297204 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orce (\"the Decree\").1 It incorporated a marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\"). Section 5.5 in the MDA awarded Wife $130,000 from Husband's 401(k), directed the \"remaining balance\" to Husband, and required Wife to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"): 5.5 Husband's Retirement Plan: Wife shall receive One Hundred Thirty Thousand ($130,000.00) from Husband's 401k through his employer UNUM. Same shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's attorney shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. For purposes of preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: incorporated a marital dissolution agreement (\"MDA\"). Section 5.5 in the MDA awarded Wife $130,000 from Husband's 401(k), directed the \"remaining balance\" to Husband, and required Wife to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"): 5.5 Husband's Retirement Plan: Wife shall receive One Hundred Thirty Thousand ($130,000.00) from Husband's 401k through his employer UNUM. Same shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's attorney shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. For purposes of preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Husband shall provide documentat"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: itional attorney fees of $500.00, for the preparation of each Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and Husband will reimburse Wife for same within 60 days of the entry of the Final Decree of Divorce. Husband is awarded all right, title and interest to his pension, and the same is an equitable division, based upon the totality of this agreement. By execution of this agreement, Wife waives and relinquishes any right, title and interest to said account. § 5.5. Draft QDROs were submitted in January and February 2019, specifically providing that Wife would not be entitled to earnings on the $130,000. In August 2019,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0727d060-dbea-4f75-a956-3f7618b15afb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9297204-9297204","title":"CourtListener opinion 9297204","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): V ___________________________________ This appeal requires interpretation of a clause in the parties' marital dissolution agreement. The final decree, entered in January 2018, incorporated the parties' agreement awarding the wife $130,000 from the husband's 401(k). After several rounds of qualified domestic relation orders and other court orders, the trial court ultimately held that the wife was entitled to $130,000 plus approximately four months of statutory interest. The wife appealed, seeking earnings on the $130,000 in addition to interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 931420 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931420 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt affirmed the family court's order. The Husband then appealed to this Court. In Chenault v. Chenault, 224 W.Va. 141, 680 S.E.2d 386 (2009) (\"Chenault I\"), we reversed the circuit court and remanded the case with instructions to the family court to enter a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") that distributed one-half of the marital share of the Husband's retirement benefits to the Wife. Id. at 147, 680 S.E.2d at 392. On September 27, 2010, the family court entered yet another order regarding the division of the Husband's pensions, in which it said, [the Husband] through counsel opines that [the Wife] is only entitled to a monetary"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d. 1 The hearing was memorialized by an order entered March 29, 2007. The order stated, in relevant part, that [t]he parties' final divorce Order did provide, however, for the [Wife] to receive one-half of the accrued value of the [Husband's] aforesaid retirement plans from November 1972 through October 1994, which shall be the ORDER of this Court. (Emphasis added.) Thereafter, the Husband appealed a June 28, 2007 order of the family court regarding the division of his federal civil service pension that awarded the Wife \"an amount equal to one-half of the total value of the plan.\" The circuit court affirmed the famil"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Petitioner Thomas D. Chenault, by counsel J. Roger Smith II, appeals the July 18, 2012 order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that affirmed the October 7, 2011 order of the Family Court of Cabell County regarding the division of Mr. Chenault's military pension in a divorce action. Respondent Sharon K. Chenault, by counsel Arik C. Paraschos, filed a response to which petitioner replied. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"390fb273-9c4b-465b-ab93-be54f98ee255","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931420-931420","title":"CourtListener opinion 931420","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ted order on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the \"Wife,\" was a teacher. Petitioner, the \"Husband\" was a federal employee who served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions \"be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each\" and that the Wife was to be \"awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension.\" The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's Army Reserve (\"military\") pension. At a March, 1, 2007, family court hearing regarding the division of the Husband's pensions, the follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 931421 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931421 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ted order on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the \"Wife,\" was a teacher. Petitioner, the \"Husband,\" was a federal employee who had also served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions \"be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each\" and that the Wife was to be \"awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension.\" The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's federal civil service pension. The Husband retired in May of 2004 and took his civil service pension as an annuity. In June of 2006, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: type of annuity or survivor benefit from either the [Husband's] Army retirement or his [Civil] Service retirement. The parties' final divorce Order did provide, however, for the [Wife] to receive one- half of the accrued value of the [Husband's] aforesaid retirement plans from November 1972 through October 1994, which shall be the ORDER of this Court. The family court entered the Wife's second amended QDRO on June 28, 2007, that awarded the Wife \"an amount equal to one-half the total value of the plan.\" The Husband's appeal of the second amended QDRO was denied by the circuit court. The Husband thereafter appealed to thi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . Chenault, by counsel J. Roger Smith II, appeals the September 9, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that affirmed the September 27, 2010 order of the Family Court of Cabell County regarding the division of Mr. Chenault's federal civil service pension in a divorce action. Respondent Sharon K. Chenault, by counsel Arik C. Paraschos, filed a response to which petitioner replied. Thereafter, upon the Court's request, the Husband filed a supplemental brief that was to address the mathematical basis for the division of his civil service pension. The Wife filed a response to the Husband's supplemental brief to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f68a4ced-f181-4c9b-8211-d671a5a4401b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931421-931421","title":"CourtListener opinion 931421","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the \"Wife,\" was a teacher. Petitioner, the \"Husband,\" was a federal employee who had also served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions \"be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each\" and that the Wife was to be \"awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension.\" The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's federal civil service pension. The Husband retired in May of 2004 and took his civil service pension as an annuity. In June of 2006, th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 931622 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 27665-10S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931622 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mmissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 57 (1991); Seidel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005- 67. However, under section 402(e)(1)(A), a former spouse is treated as the distributee with respect to distributions made to that spouse under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions constitute taxable income 8 Sec. 402(a) provides, in relevant part, that \"any amount actually distributed to any distributee by any employees' trust described in section 401(a) which is exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall be taxable to the distributee * * * under section 72 (relating to annuities).\" -8- to that spouse. S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of $6,062 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,212 pursuant to section 6662.2 After a concession by petitioner,3 the issues remaining for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner must include in gross income a distribution he received from his former spouse's retirement account; and (2) whether he is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. We hold that petitioner must include the distribution in his gross income but is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ithin the clear scope of the exclusion.\" Zimmerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-36, 2008 WL 449786, at *1. According to petitioner, after he was awarded a 50% interest in his former spouse's TSP account, he allegedly sold that interest back to the TSP pension administrator in exchange for $25,248 in \"sales proceeds\". In petitioner's view, the alleged \"sale\" of his 50% interest to the plan administrator in exchange for $25,248 was a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of his former spouse required by the divorce decree and, therefore, was a nontaxable event under section 1.1041-1T(c), Q&A-9, Temp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1486672f-a123-4aca-9b60-b375bf791584","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-931622-931622","title":"CourtListener opinion 931622","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"27665-10S","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: a) shall be taxable to the distributee * * * under section 72 (relating to annuities).\" -8- to that spouse. See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 215, 219 (2008). The former spouse that receives the distribution under the QDRO is also referred to as the \"alternate payee\". Id. The record establishes, and the parties do not dispute, that the distribution at issue here is treated as made pursuant to a QDRO.9 In 2006, and pursuant to the divorce decree and family court order, petitioner was awarded a 50% interest in the marital portion of his former spouse's TSP account. In early 2007 petitioner \"cashed in\" his share"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9323116 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9323116 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: on July 26, 1958. On December 15, 1997, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered a final decree of divorce between the parties. Paragraph thirteen of the divorce decree stated that Shelton would receive fifty percent of the marital share of husband's VRS retirement plan. That paragraph further provided that \"[husband] is directed to elect a Survivor's Option naming [Shelton] as the contingent annuitant. Division shall be effectuated by the entry of a VSR [sic] Approved Domestic Relations Order.\" On the same day that the divorce decree was entered, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered an approved domestic relation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: o designate a spouse or former spouse as irrevocable beneficiary during the lifetime of the beneficiary of all or a portion of any survivor benefit or annuity plan of whatsoever nature.\" (Emphasis added). In contrast, Code § 20-107.3(G)(1), which concerns pension, profit-sharing, or deferred compensation plans, provides that a \"court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan, or retirement benefits . . . that constitutes marital property.\" Further, \"[t]he court may order direct payment of such percentage of the marital share by direct ass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s Option naming [Shelton] as the contingent annuitant. Division shall be effectuated by the entry of a VSR [sic] Approved Domestic Relations Order.\" On the same day that the divorce decree was entered, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered an approved domestic relations order (\"ADRO\") in relation to the VRS retirement provisions in the divorce decree. In paragraph six, titled \"Member to name spouse as contingent Annuitant,\" the order states that husband \"shall name [Shelton] as the only contingent Annutant [sic] (i.e., Survivor Option) which shall provide a monthly payment to the former spouse for her lifetime.\" The ADRO f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1876dcb0-0dec-49b5-bd42-67de7da9327b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323116-9323116","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323116","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: orney General, on briefs), for appellant. Richard L. Locke (Shannon S. Otto; Locke & Otto, on brief), for appellee. The Virginia Retirement System (\"VRS\") appeals an order of the City of Richmond Circuit Court (\"circuit court\") directing that VRS pay a survivor benefit to Joan B. Shelton (\"Shelton\") and ordering that VRS pay her $25,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, VRS argues that the circuit court erred in ordering VRS to pay a monthly survivor benefit to Shelton. VRS further contends that the circuit court erred by awarding Shelton attorney fees and costs. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e48e7397-6e38-401b-a8de-d9a5003e4493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9323915 Extracted case name: SCOTT v. SCOTT. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9323915 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e48e7397-6e38-401b-a8de-d9a5003e4493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e48e7397-6e38-401b-a8de-d9a5003e4493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: DECISION Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. G A S S, Vice Chief Judge: ¶1 In 2021, husband challenged a 2013 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) arising out of a 2010 dissolution decree. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied his petition. Husband appeals the denial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In December 2010, the superior court entered a decree dividing the parties' property, including their three retirement accounts. Husband retained his two retirement accou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e48e7397-6e38-401b-a8de-d9a5003e4493","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9323915-9323915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9323915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: cree. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied his petition. Husband appeals the denial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In December 2010, the superior court entered a decree dividing the parties' property, including their three retirement accounts. Husband retained his two retirement accounts, and wife retained her one retirement account. ¶3 In June 2013, after a failed reconciliation attempt, the parties prepared the QDRO. The QDRO reallocated some of husband's retirement accounts to give wife fifty percent of husband's deferred retirement option plan benefits and $1,000 of husband's monthly retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9325097 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shulga. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-21-1018 where the circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9325097 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ¶ 10 On August 30, 2016, Ronald married Mary. ¶ 11 On October 20, 2016, a QILDRO was entered to implement a division of the parties' interest in the Evanston Firefighters Pension Fund (Fund). Section III required the Fund to pay 50% per month of Ronald's retirement benefits to Jodi, and the monthly payments would terminate upon the death of Ronald or Jodi, whichever first occurs. Section VII directed the Fund to pay Jodi 50% \"of any death benefits that become payable to [Ronald's] death benefit beneficiaries or estate.\" Finally, as relevant to the issues in this appeal, section XII stated the following: \"The Court retain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tems from a postdissolution of marriage proceeding, in which petitioner- appellee Jodi Shulga (Jodi) brought a claim for unjust enrichment against third party respondent- appellant Mary Klebba (Mary) and sought a constructive trust over the surviving spouse pension benefits Mary received as the wife of respondent Ronald Shulga (Ronald) at the time of his death. The circuit court determined that Mary was unjustly enriched, and Jodi was entitled to receive 50% of the benefits and imposed a constructive trust. This court affirmed the circuit court's decision on appeal. In the Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App (1st) 182"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ettlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled \"Marital Property,\" provided that Ronald was a participant in the City of Evanston Pension Plan and that Jodi was awarded 50% of the marital portion of these benefits pursuant to a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO). ¶9 On July 26, 2016, Ronald applied for line-of-duty disability pension with the Evanston Firefighters Pension Fund pursuant to section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code). ¶ 10 On August 30, 2016, Ronald married Mary. ¶ 11 On October 20, 2016, a QILDRO was entered to implement a division of the parties' interest in the Evansto"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9160cfe3-ea6b-4c5d-9f4e-86518791cd82","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9325097-9325097","title":"CourtListener opinion 9325097","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1018 where the circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: . ¶2 This case stems from a postdissolution of marriage proceeding, in which petitioner- appellee Jodi Shulga (Jodi) brought a claim for unjust enrichment against third party respondent- appellant Mary Klebba (Mary) and sought a constructive trust over the surviving spouse pension benefits Mary received as the wife of respondent Ronald Shulga (Ronald) at the time of his death. The circuit court determined that Mary was unjustly enriched, and Jodi was entitled to receive 50% of the benefits and imposed a constructive trust. This court affirmed the circuit court's decision on appeal. In the Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App ("}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9348563 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9348563 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain \"equal to one-half of the date of separation balance\" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled \"Motion For Entry of [QDROs],\" in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he \"is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]\" and that he \"is in need of, and entitled to, discovery\" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the \"2005 Consent Order\"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3b72ca0a-8594-49d5-b57d-7baec6831578","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9348563-9348563","title":"CourtListener opinion 9348563","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-198","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9349948 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Lobaina. Docket: 358184 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9349948 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: spousal support. Defendant testified that he waived his right to trial and that the settlement would serve as the judgment. The trial court later entered a consent judgment of divorce that mirrored the settlement placed on the record. A specialist prepared qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for entry by the court as required under the judgment which gave rise to disputes between the parties. Later, plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment, for reimbursement for cost of the QDRO, and for transfer of title to a Jeep to plaintiff. She argued that the judgment entitled her to disbursement from defendant's 401(k) of $80,000 tax free on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d her attorney fees. Defendant opposed plaintiff's motion on the ground that the judgment stated that the tax-free funds were merely \"presumed\" to be $80,000, and blamed plaintiff for not confirming the actual amount of pretax dollars that were in defendant's retirement account. He asserted that $80,000 of tax-free funds were unavailable and plaintiff should not be permitted a windfall on the basis of a presumption that proved inaccurate. Further, defendant denied ever agreeing to pay plaintiff $80,000 in tax- free funds because he did not believe that amount existed. The trial court submitted the matter to a Friend of Court ref"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): his objections to the Friend of the Court referee's recommendations, adopting those recommendations, and granting plaintiff's motion to enforce the parties' consent judgment of divorce respecting payment of the balance of funds owed plaintiff from defendant's 401(k) and award to plaintiff attorney fees. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant married in 1992. In 2018, plaintiff filed for divorce alleging that a breakdown and destruction of the marital relationship occurred with no reasonable likelihood that it could be preserved. Defendant filed a counterclaim for divorce and answered the complaint"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"16438422-7746-4837-a8b6-d19a12f71c49","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9349948-9349948","title":"CourtListener opinion 9349948","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"358184 Macomb Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: upport. Defendant testified that he waived his right to trial and that the settlement would serve as the judgment. The trial court later entered a consent judgment of divorce that mirrored the settlement placed on the record. A specialist prepared qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for entry by the court as required under the judgment which gave rise to disputes between the parties. Later, plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment, for reimbursement for cost of the QDRO, and for transfer of title to a Jeep to plaintiff. She argued that the judgment entitled her to disbursement from defendant's 401(k) of $80,000 tax free on the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9350649 Extracted case name: C.S. v. M.S. Extracted reporter citation: 969 N.E.2d 312. Docket: 2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9350649 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ts The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) within thirty (30) days of a subsequent decree of divorce being filed. This sum in non modifiable [sic] and is considered total payment to Wife in lieu of a divisi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Jackson Emergency Physicians Ltd., First Merit Health Savings account, Husband's Individual Fidelity account and custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) within"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"171f40e1-36a8-4755-9d7b-ea7676d53ba6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9350649-9350649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9350649","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL","extracted_reporter_citation":"969 N.E.2d 312","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: account, Husband's Individual Fidelity account and custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf04fbbc-1a0c-4be0-acd9-1d95aac3e8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351016","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9351016 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351016 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf04fbbc-1a0c-4be0-acd9-1d95aac3e8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351016","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf04fbbc-1a0c-4be0-acd9-1d95aac3e8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351016","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Puentes and Cisneros married on May 18, 1991. Their marriage ended by Final Decree of Divorce dated October 6, 2005 (the 2005 Decree), following an August 1, 2005, hearing. The 2005 Decree includes a division of Puentes's military retirement benefits. The trial court also entered a military retirement Domestic Relations Order on October 7 (the DRO), which differs from the 2005 Decree in its definition of Puentes's disposable retired pay by rank and the share awarded to Cisneros.1 On November 8, 2005, after the trial court's plenary power expired, Cisneros filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf04fbbc-1a0c-4be0-acd9-1d95aac3e8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351016","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Their marriage ended by Final Decree of Divorce dated October 6, 2005 (the 2005 Decree), following an August 1, 2005, hearing. The 2005 Decree includes a division of Puentes's military retirement benefits. The trial court also entered a military retirement Domestic Relations Order on October 7 (the DRO), which differs from the 2005 Decree in its definition of Puentes's disposable retired pay by rank and the share awarded to Cisneros.1 On November 8, 2005, after the trial court's plenary power expired, Cisneros filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, alleging the omission of a $1,500 judgment in her favor. There is no record"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bf04fbbc-1a0c-4be0-acd9-1d95aac3e8be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351016-9351016","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351016","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: nge and readjudicate or rewrite and change the terms of the judgment as rendered[.]\" Id. (citing Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex. 1978)). A trial court may also after expiration of its plenary jurisdiction clarify or enforce a divorce decree's property division. See DeGroot v. DeGroot, 260 S.W.3d 658, 662 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 9.002, 9.008). A party may request the court to clarify an order that is not specific enough to be enforceable by contempt. O'Donnell v. Vargo, No. 05-16-01058-CV, 2017 WL 4216248, at * 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.)."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f3fec4b-ff30-4f5d-91bc-1cb9904ac02d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351522","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9351522 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f3fec4b-ff30-4f5d-91bc-1cb9904ac02d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351522","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f3fec4b-ff30-4f5d-91bc-1cb9904ac02d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351522-9351522","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351522","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), felony using personal identifying information (id., § 530.5, subd. (a)), felony false personation (id., § 529, subd. 1 (a)(3), two counts of misdemeanor contempt of court (id., § 166, subd. (c)(1)), misdemeanor violating a domestic relations order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). A month later, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony stalking in exchange for a 16-month lid and that the remaining counts would be dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked defendant if he was \"in good health.\" De"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9351665 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Santopadre. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351665 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ive fifty percent (50%) of such retirement or 12 pension benefit to which Edwin F. Reiss is entitled to receive from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Id. Non-Goodyear employee Gloria sought and obtained a post-judgment Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that she was entitled to half the total benefits Edwin earned under the pension plan, including sums accrued after the divorce. Id. at 440-41. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the only property the divorce decree purported to divide was community property. Id. at 441 (citing Reiss v. Reiss, 40 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: inancing and Accounting Service (DFAS) informed Santomero by letter that Sandra had applied for payment of a portion of his retired/retainer pay. The retiree account statement showed that DFAS concluded that Sandra was due fifty percent of Santomero's full retirement benefit, which included compensation for years of service during which they were not married to each other. Santomero disagreed with DFAS's apportionment of his benefits and filed a petition for declaratory judgment regarding the proper amount of pay under the 1996 Decree in the same cause number as the 1996 Decree. He requested a declaration that all military"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: concerning the Final Decree of Divorce (1996 Decree). Sandra 1 contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the request for a declaratory judgment \"reinterpreting\" the 1996 Decree's terms regarding payment of appellee Santomero V. Riley's military pension, including determining whether the 1996 Decree contains a mistake and \"whether years 1 through 13 are worth less than years 14 through 38.\" We will vacate the 2021 Order in part, reverse it in part, and render judgment that Santomero take nothing by his petition and that Sandra is awarded the amounts in a trust account that was created to hold the dispu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e29229e5-09b0-4f13-8ead-fdcd79153205","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351665-9351665","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351665","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: y this Court on August 22, 1996, that purports to award 50% of SANTOMERO V. RILEY's Military Retirement to SANDRA F. RILEY only awards 50% of the retirement earned prior to the divorce.\" (Emphases in original). He also requested that the trial court sign a domestic relations order reflecting the proper division and directing DFAS to distribute his retirement benefits according to its declaratory judgment. In his First Amended Petition, he requested injunctive relief barring DFAS from paying Sandra half of his full retirement pay. The trial court signed an Agreed Temporary Injunction on June 22, 2016, in which Sandra agreed she w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9351914 Extracted reporter citation: 118 S.W.3d 82. Docket: 05-22-00056-CV V. Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351914 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: agreed to the division of the Bank of America and Time Warner pension funds based on his belief he was getting a straight 50/50 split. He did not realize Wife's counsel \"was using the term ‘shared interest of the benefit' as words of art contained within a QDRO.\" He asked the court to clarify the agreement because it put him at a disadvantage in receiving funds from the accounts. He also asserted he \"[did] not believe that was the court's position to convey those funds on less than an even 50/50 basis.\" Wife filed a response and argued \"the parties announced their agreement on the record and the record is cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e court render judgment dividing the two pension plans 50/50 between the parties. After a hearing, the trial court issued a memorandum on Husband's motion to modify, correct, or reform in which it \"set[] aside the agreement of the parties regarding the two retirement accounts in question.\" Wife filed a motion for reconsideration. After a hearing on November 15, 2019, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration from the bench. The trial judge indicated she did not believe the parties had a \"meeting of the minds on this situation at all, and so it messes up the whole deal.\" The trial court ordered a new trial. A"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: isa M. Rodriguez (Wife) appeals from the final divorce decree entered on December 10, 2021. In four issues, she challenges whether a valid Rule 11 agreement was formed between her and appellee Esequiel Rodriguez, Jr. (Husband) regarding the division of two pension plans and whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the stipulation without good cause. In a separate issue, she contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her name change request. We affirm the trial court's judgment. 1 The Hon. Barbara Rosenberg, Justice, Assigned Background Husband and Wife married on Septembe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d97c9b20-ce7f-4284-8d6c-4f52769a9115","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9351914-9351914","title":"CourtListener opinion 9351914","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"05-22-00056-CV V. Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"118 S.W.3d 82","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n 50/50 basis.\" Wife filed a response and argued \"the parties announced their agreement on the record and the record is clear.\" She asserted Husband's attorney's failure to understand the consequences of the agreement was not a valid reason to change the property division and was not subject to a clarification order because Husband was seeking a correction, not a clarification. She emphasized Husband failed to object to the agreement on May 8, 2019, and instead indicated his understanding of it in open court. The trial court held a hearing on Husband's motion to clarify on July 1, 2019. Husband's counsel again stated,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9352066 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DARRELL P. Extracted reporter citation: 68 Cal.App.3d 515. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9352066 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t. Law Offices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: .)4 II. Community Interest in Darrell's Pension A. Applicable law In general, all property acquired by spouses during marriage but before separation is considered community property. (Lehman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 177.) This includes the property right to retirement benefits attributable to employment during marriage. (Ibid.)5 \"The right to retirement 4 Darrell contends that we should apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (See In re Marriage of Adams (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 [method selected to distribute the community interest in retirement rights reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Because we conclude that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He joined the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan on October 11, 1987. During the parties' marriage, Darrell held the rank and paygrade of Police Officer I, Police Officer II, and Police Officer III. Stipulated Judgment of Dissolution A stipulated judgment of marital dissolution was entered on May 12, 1997 (stipulated judgment). As relevant here, the stipulated judgment awarded Angela and Darrell eac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e7c727-ef15-4c73-b8b0-e5db6eebcf7a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9352066-9352066","title":"CourtListener opinion 9352066","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9353342 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER AND STEPHANIE MAE HARPER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0041. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9353342 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecause equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the cost of daycare. Matthew continued working as an engineer, a job he st"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge. A wife appeals the district court's grant of physical care to the husband, division of a retirement account, the calculation of her spousal support, and award of attorney fees. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Rachel R. McCrate of Gray, Stefani, & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 GREER,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ave been paid. [Matthew's] credit card debt has increased since November 2020.\" We believe all assets should be valued as of the same date and not just selected assets that are only affected by the market. 15 The parties agreed that $57,612.93 of Matthew's 401(k) and $18,233.81 of his Roth IRA were premarital assets and should be deducted before distribution. Matthew's affidavit of financial status filed with the court just days before the trial began, shows the values of the retirement accounts at $501,021.00 in his 401(k) and $149,961.00 in his IRA. After subtracting the premarital amounts (pursuant to the pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d8ce2621-d646-4ee5-95d2-2534a4138344","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353342-9353342","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353342","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ions of the decree. But, because equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the cost of daycare. Matthew continued working as an engineer, a jo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9353939 Docket: 359226 Livingston Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9353939 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, \"Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall be transferred to Husband by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as outlined in paragraph 6. Husband shall pay for the cost of drafting the QDRO.\" The UCSO deviation addendum attached to the judgment further provides, \"Wife has transferred $100,000 in retirement funds to Husband in full satisfaction of any claim he may have to the receipt of child support,\" and that \"$100,000 in retirement funds were transferred to Hus"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nt judgment provided for equal parenting time. Under the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF), Shana was required to pay Brian $1,051 in monthly child support. In lieu of monthly payments, the parties agreed that Shana would transfer $100,000 from one of her retirement accounts to Brian. Consistent with this agreement, ¶ 6 in the \"custody, parenting time, and support\" section of the consent judgment states: 1 The couple's eldest child has since reached the age of majority. -1- See attached Uniform Child Support Order [UCSO]. The parties acknowledge, and as reflected in the [UCSO] Deviation Addendum, and the Settlement Agree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): jority. -1- See attached Uniform Child Support Order [UCSO]. The parties acknowledge, and as reflected in the [UCSO] Deviation Addendum, and the Settlement Agreement between the parties dated March 20, 2020,[2] Wife has prepaid Husband $100,000 from her 401K as outlined in paragraph 19 in lieu of any claim he may currently have or have in the future for child support from Wife to Husband. Paragraph 19 falls within the property division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, \"Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4aa20f87-794a-47bc-9194-7a461bbf1bb8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9353939-9353939","title":"CourtListener opinion 9353939","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359226 Livingston Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: between the parties dated March 20, 2020,[2] Wife has prepaid Husband $100,000 from her 401K as outlined in paragraph 19 in lieu of any claim he may currently have or have in the future for child support from Wife to Husband. Paragraph 19 falls within the property division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, \"Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall be transferred to Husband by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") as outlined in paragraph 6. Husband shall pay for the cost of drafting the QDRO.\" The UCSO deviation ad"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9363824 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of PATRICIA M. and JOHN D. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9363824 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aration of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the respective community interest of the parties and govern the disposition of benefits upon qualification by the plan(s).\" A qualified domestic relations order, or QDRO, is an order directing a retirement plan to pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse. (See In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) Finally, the MSA divided the parties' assets and obligations. Among other things, the parties agreed that each would retain one of their two ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: John would maintain coverage for Patricia under the health insurance provided through his employment, and stated, \"At present husband carries two P.P.O. insurances through his retirement and current employer.\" The MSA also addressed the allocation of John's retirement benefits: \"Based on Husband's employment during marriage, a community interest has arisen which include the following: Benefits from Federal Retirement, VA benefits, CalPERS. [¶] The parties agree and shall cooperate in the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: oyed, and had not worked outside the home for most of the marriage. John was 65 and worked for the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department as a detention aide. John was also receiving (1) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits and (2) a federal pension (he had previously worked for the federal government for approximately 32 years). In January 2015, Patricia and John executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that determined spousal support and the division of their assets. The MSA provided for spousal support as follows: \"[Husband] shall pay to [Wife] for spousal support 1/2 his total income which in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dd3545bc-ce0f-4f14-9deb-d8ee48f4c2be","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9363824-9363824","title":"CourtListener opinion 9363824","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the respective community interest of the parties and govern the disposition of benefits upon qualification by the plan(s).\" A qualified domestic relations order, or QDRO, is an order directing a retirement plan to pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse. (See In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) Finally, the MSA divided the parties' assets and obligations. Among other things, the parties agreed that each would retain one of their two ca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9365514 Extracted case name: LESLIE v. LESLIE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9365514 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: N Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Sawako Momii Leslie (\"Wife\") appeals from the superior court's entry of a divorce decree and a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") awarding John Marvin Leslie (\"Husband\") one half the community portion of her University of California 457(B) deferred compensation plan, as well as earnings from the valuation date to the segregation date. We dismiss the appeal to the extent it challenges the divorce decree because Wife previously unsuccessfully appealed from the entry of the decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: was invalid. The court denied Wife's motion, proceeded to trial, and entered the divorce decree, including a finding that the parties were validly married. In the decree, the superior court awarded each party one half of the community portion of the community retirement accounts and other retirement accounts containing community assets. It also ordered the parties to select a qualified person to prepare a QDRO. Wife appealed the decree, and this court affirmed. Leslie v. Leslie, 1 CA-CV 19-0628 FC, 2020 WL 3525912 (Ariz. App. June 30, 2020) (mem. decision). ¶4 A special master subsequently prepared a QDRO dividing the community p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: these untimely arguments, and they are dismissed. See id. II. The QDRO ¶8 Wife claims the QDRO is invalid because: (1) the court erred in failing to calculate the QDRO using California law; (2) the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), Arizona law, and California law; and (3) the court entered the QDRO without establishing marital validity or community property rights and was biased. A. California Law Calculations ¶9 Wife argues the superior court erred in applying Arizona law to calculate \"the amount, distribution and timing of payment\" in the QDRO. Wife claims the court instead sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d89d0da8-ac4d-4f18-a29e-9f1205e9c31d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365514-9365514","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365514","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e courts may assign benefits through QDROs if the orders meet the requirements listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), by clearly specifying: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. Here, the QDRO complies wit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9365932 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER AND STEPHANIE MAE HARPER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0041. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9365932 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecause equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO).1 I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the 1 Our original opinion in this case, filed January 11, 2023, was vaca"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge. A wife appeals the district court's grant of physical care to the husband, division of a retirement account, the calculation of her spousal support, and award of attorney fees. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Rachel R. McCrate of Gray, Stefani, & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 GREER,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): between the initial trial date and the date the trial was held, resulted in the increased values so that it would be inequitable for Stephanie to realize the same gain in the funds he did under the decree. The parties agreed that $57,612.93 of Matthew's 401(k) and $18,233.81 of his Roth IRA were premarital assets and should be deducted before distribution. Matthew's affidavit of financial status filed with the court just days before the trial began, shows the values of the retirement accounts at $501,021.00 in his 401(k) and $149,961.00 in his IRA. After subtracting the premarital amounts (pursuant to the pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eaf2ca7c-7243-4abf-8629-5b0dcfcd7bee","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9365932-9365932","title":"CourtListener opinion 9365932","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0041","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ions of the decree. But, because equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO).1 I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the 1 Our original opinion in this case, filed January 11, 2023, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9366373 Extracted case name: D.H. v. J.C. Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 110353. During the pendency of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9366373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regarding the pension. Wife now appeals from that order and argues the trial court abused its discretion in improperly modifying the judgment entry of divorce by using a date for the pension that varies from the date of the termination of the marriage. Our review of pertinent case law authority indicates that it is within the trial court'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ntiff-appellee Constantine Karabogias (\"husband\") and defendant-appellant Joan Zoltanski (\"wife\") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") regardi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adbcedcd-9b94-40f2-8062-bbe8455878c7","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366373-9366373","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366373","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"110353. During the pendency of the","extracted_reporter_citation":"432 N.E.2d 183","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): as (\"husband\") and defendant-appellant Joan Zoltanski (\"wife\") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (\"SERP\") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9366529 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CLIFFORD and. Extracted reporter citation: 33 Cal.App.5th 298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9366529 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at a settlement conference. The terms of the agreements reached that day were recited on the record by the attorney serving as a pro tem settlement officer. The settlement officer stated that, \"[t]he deferred compensation accounts will be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders or other similar order to divide these accounts. This includes the PERS account for [Jenny's] retirement. The parties have agreed to use the services of Elizabeth Strassen to divide the account. [Clifford] has agreed to advance the retainer to Ms. Strassen.\" Clifford's attorney clarified, \"The QUADROS or the orders that will be prepared by Elizabeth Strass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: D O. MARKS, Respondent, v. JENNY FU MARKS, Appellant. Appellant Jenny Fu Marks appeals orders issued by the trial court arising from the dissolution of her marriage to respondent Clifford Marks. She contends the court erred when it divided a CalPERS retirement account, and challenges other orders that assigned payment of a debt, awarded spousal support, and awarded attorney's fees and costs as a sanction under Family Code section 271. As Jenny1 has failed to meet her burden to show that the trial court erred, we will affirm the orders and resulting judgment. 1 As the parties share the same last name, we refer to them"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: perty, or if she agrees that the parties intended to award Clifford half of the benefit incurred during the marriage, with any retirement benefit incurred post-separation to be awarded as Jenny's separate property. She notes \"[t]hat [Clifford's] rights to the pension will only extend during the period of community property is clearly stated in Order after MSC. . . .\" The relief she appears to seek in her appellant's opening brief is a modification of the judgment to include the following language, which she contends \"meets CalPERS published requirements\" and is \"necessary for the purpose of equitable equalization and di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"939e6746-374d-42d4-a95e-ea33dc317a9c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9366529-9366529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9366529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"33 Cal.App.5th 298","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ement conference. The terms of the agreements reached that day were recited on the record by the attorney serving as a pro tem settlement officer. The settlement officer stated that, \"[t]he deferred compensation accounts will be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders or other similar order to divide these accounts. This includes the PERS account for [Jenny's] retirement. The parties have agreed to use the services of Elizabeth Strassen to divide the account. [Clifford] has agreed to advance the retainer to Ms. Strassen.\" Clifford's attorney clarified, \"The QUADROS or the orders that will be prepared by Elizabeth Strass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9367425 Extracted case name: ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR v. PUBLICATION ANGELA M. BELTHIUS. Extracted reporter citation: 68 Cal.App.3d 515. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367425 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t. Law Offices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: .)4 II. Community Interest in Darrell's Pension A. Applicable law In general, all property acquired by spouses during marriage but before separation is considered community property. (Lehman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 177.) This includes the property right to retirement benefits attributable to employment during marriage. (Ibid.)5 \"The right to retirement 4 Darrell contends that we should apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (See In re Marriage of Adams (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 [method selected to distribute the community interest in retirement rights reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Because we conclude that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He joined the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan on October 11, 1987. During the parties' marriage, Darrell held the rank and paygrade of Police Officer I, Police Officer II, and Police Officer III. Stipulated Judgment of Dissolution A stipulated judgment of marital dissolution was entered on May 12, 1997 (stipulated judgment). As relevant here, the stipulated judgment awarded Angela and Darrell eac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"250d27bf-cb5c-457d-8ee5-87a9c8b64724","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367425-9367425","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367425","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"68 Cal.App.3d 515","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32056448-e735-46af-817e-c44adb595bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367450","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9367450 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367450 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32056448-e735-46af-817e-c44adb595bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367450","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"32056448-e735-46af-817e-c44adb595bdd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367450-9367450","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367450","citation":"Domestic Relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: appellee. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations BEATTY BLUNT, P.J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Chad N. Woodford, appeals the May 15, 2021 decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations ordering the trial record and shared parenting decree issued on July 6, 2020 in this case to be supplemented with a child support worksheet pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A). Appellant argues that the trial court erred by supplementing the trial record with a child support worksheet as the case was already under appeal. {¶ 2} On the date that the trial court issued"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80584e00-cd90-4cb5-adfc-a2ec20046948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367997","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1919 EDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9367997 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1919 EDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367997 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80584e00-cd90-4cb5-adfc-a2ec20046948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367997","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1919 EDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80584e00-cd90-4cb5-adfc-a2ec20046948","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9367997-9367997","title":"CourtListener opinion 9367997","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1919 EDA 2021","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: trial court's reasoning. Indeed, the trial court's jurisdiction to correct the omission from its order long after thirty days is supported by the case law. See, e.g., Hayward, supra at 236 (holding extraordinary circumstances existed to modify a qualified domestic relations order six years after its entry where the order's indication of an improper coverture fraction was apparent from the face of the record). ____________________________________________ 3 The Maize Court in turn cited with approval Cohn v. Scheuer, 8 A. 421, 422 (Pa. 1887), in which our Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's amendment of the verdict weeks after"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0b9a466-e217-4806-9845-b31bf2696e95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"211 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 A.2d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9368674 Extracted reporter citation: 869 A.2d 548. Docket: 211 WDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9368674 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0b9a466-e217-4806-9845-b31bf2696e95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"211 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 A.2d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0b9a466-e217-4806-9845-b31bf2696e95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"211 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 A.2d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as it legal error and an abuse of discretion to penalize [Appellant] $20,000 where the Trial Court[] mistakenly believes transfer to Mother was by tax-free rollover when [Appellant's] testimony is contrary, and, when a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] is not on the docket? 4. Was it legal error for the Trial Court not to consider and factor into the deviation analysis [Appellant's] federally-approved disability under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (Rule 16-5)]? 5. Was it legal error for the Trial Court to consider income distributions from [Appellant's] post-[Equitable Distribution (ED)] IRA asset also as"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0b9a466-e217-4806-9845-b31bf2696e95","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368674-9368674","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368674","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"211 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"869 A.2d 548","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the Trial Court not to consider and factor into the deviation analysis [Appellant's] federally-approved disability under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (Rule 16-5)]? 5. Was it legal error for the Trial Court to consider income distributions from [Appellant's] post-[Equitable Distribution (ED)] IRA asset also as income when calculating child support, when imputing $20,000 of \"hypothetical\" income, and when applying a retroactive child support deviation? Appellant's Brief at 3 (reordered for disposition). We review support awards for an abuse of discretion. Spahr v. Spahr, 869 A.2d 548, 551 (Pa. Super. 2005). \"A finding that the court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9368787 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of LAURIE and WAYNE JACOBSEN. LAURIE JACOBSEN. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.4th 169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9368787 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Wayne's three other retirement plans were also addressed in the stipulated judgment, with each party receiving one-half of the community property interest in those plans. The stipulated judgment stated Wayne was to prepare and transmit to Laurie's counsel a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the assignment provisions concerning the division of all four of his retirement benefit plans. The stipulated judgment further stated the QDRO concerning the PARB \"will provide that [Laurie's] share will be paid to her as [Wayne's] share is paid to him.\" The stipulated judgment indicated the court retained jurisdiction for certain purpo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Melveny for more than 20 years. A month after they separated, Wayne turned 55 years old. Based on his age and years of service, Wayne was eligible to retire and receive a pension benefit from O'Melveny, which the parties refer to as the \"Partnership Agreement Retirement Benefit\" (PARB). The PARB is a defined benefit program for the law firm's equity partners. Wayne did not retire at age 55, but instead, he continued in his role at the firm for about 10 more years. When Wayne retired, Laurie requested an order from the trial court determining the community property interest in Wayne's PARB payment under the time rule. The time rul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 'Melveny or OMM). When Wayne and Laurie separated, Wayne had been an equity partner at O'Melveny for more than 20 years. A month after they separated, Wayne turned 55 years old. Based on his age and years of service, Wayne was eligible to retire and receive a pension benefit from O'Melveny, which the parties refer to as the \"Partnership Agreement Retirement Benefit\" (PARB). The PARB is a defined benefit program for the law firm's equity partners. Wayne did not retire at age 55, but instead, he continued in his role at the firm for about 10 more years. When Wayne retired, Laurie requested an order from the trial court d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a4edfc19-6133-4a30-af77-cc1c3b9f3dd1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9368787-9368787","title":"CourtListener opinion 9368787","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"18 Cal.4th 169","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: three other retirement plans were also addressed in the stipulated judgment, with each party receiving one-half of the community property interest in those plans. The stipulated judgment stated Wayne was to prepare and transmit to Laurie's counsel a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the assignment provisions concerning the division of all four of his retirement benefit plans. The stipulated judgment further stated the QDRO concerning the PARB \"will provide that [Laurie's] share will be paid to her as [Wayne's] share is paid to him.\" The stipulated judgment indicated the court retained jurisdiction for certain purpo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"586b5f6f-b54e-43b1-8a94-684959bdcc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369048","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9369048 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9369048 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"586b5f6f-b54e-43b1-8a94-684959bdcc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369048","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"586b5f6f-b54e-43b1-8a94-684959bdcc07","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369048-9369048","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369048","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Defendant made threatening social media posts and calls to the victim, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Defendant was charged with stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)),1 criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), misdemeanor domestic violence contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)(A)), and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant made several Marsden2 motions; the trial court held hearings on each motion and denied each. Defendant then entered into a stipulated plea agreement to felony stalking in exchange for fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9369353 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SUE A. BLOOMQUIST AND ROBERT L. BLOOMQUIST Upon the Petition of SUE A. BLOOMQUIST. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 21-1631. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9369353 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r sell the house. The court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Benson formula. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–56 (Iowa 1996) (providing a f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lity for the mortgage indebtedness, with the direction that he remove Sue from the mortgage indebtedness or sell the house. The court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Benson formula. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–56 (Iowa 1996) (providing a formula for dividing de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"44094da3-983b-417e-9d29-2225be434767","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9369353-9369353","title":"CourtListener opinion 9369353","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"21-1631","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tion statement, which incorporates our findings of values based on the record as well as the valuation determinations previously discussed:4 Description of Asset/Debt Sue Robert Sue—Pension Equal5 Equal Sue—Fidelity Rollover IRA $134,504 Sue—Prudential 401(k) $299,755 Robert—IRA $11,352 House $271,000 House mortgage ($205,055) Sue—Checking Account $1,460 Sue—Savings Account $4,700 Robert—Checking Account $1,661 Robert—Savings Account $300 Robert—Pen Fed Account $30 Sue—Citi Card Credit Card ($1,626) Sue—Mastercard Credit Card ($157) Sue—Visa Credit Card ($198) Robert—Total of Three Credit Cards ($1,9"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9370683 Extracted case name: WARREN v. STEPHENS. Extracted reporter citation: 676 F.3d 1193. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9370683 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ies to submit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected by the homestead exemption, ordered Husband's Allstate Plan divided by Wife's proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), and ordered each party responsible for their separate debts. Husband timely moved to alter or amend the court's order. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 83. After responsive briefing, the court amended its order to reflect that Husband's bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing and to clarify that the parties were entitled to any personal property in their poss"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: vided Retirement Assets.\" The superior court set an evidentiary hearing to determine the proper division of the parties' community property and debts. The contested issues included the division of equity in the marital home, the division of Husband's Allstate Retirement Plan (\"Allstate Plan\"), and the division of community debts. At the close of the hearing, the superior court denied Husband's request for more time to present evidence but permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: idence and is contrary to law.\" Even so, he acknowledges the portion of the Allstate Plan earned during the parties' marriage is community property subject to equitable division. See Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 14. ¶16 The community interest in a spouse's pension plan can be calculated under either the \"present cash value method\" or the \"reserved jurisdiction method.\" Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 41 (1981). Though the present cash value method is preferred, the reserved jurisdiction method is appropriate if the pension rights cannot be accurately valued, and the marital estate has insufficient property to satis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"678270d2-44a1-4785-b7a0-769b9201d1c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9370683-9370683","title":"CourtListener opinion 9370683","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"676 F.3d 1193","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected by the homestead exemption, ordered Husband's Allstate Plan divided by Wife's proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"), and ordered each party responsible for their separate debts. Husband timely moved to alter or amend the court's order. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 83. After responsive briefing, the court amended its order to reflect that Husband's bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing and to clarify that the parties were entitled to any personal property in their poss"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26261c14-bcdd-4f95-9c78-8453f8cd1b6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9371474 Extracted case name: TOMSICH v. TOMSICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9371474 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26261c14-bcdd-4f95-9c78-8453f8cd1b6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26261c14-bcdd-4f95-9c78-8453f8cd1b6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: stated agreement did not mention or otherwise account for the single largest 2 TOMSICH v. TOMSICH Decision of the Court community asset—Husband's retirement account—even though both parties' pretrial statements requested the account be divided equally by QDRO. Nevertheless, the parties agreed on the record that each would keep the personal property in their possession, and the court approved the agreement as fair and equitable. ¶5 After trial, the court denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance, finding that Wife did not meet any of the five qualifying criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). The court also award"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26261c14-bcdd-4f95-9c78-8453f8cd1b6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: er returning to the U.S., paid for in part with Husband's G.I. Bill benefits. ¶3 Wife filed and served her petition for dissolution of marriage in December 2020. She declined Husband's March 2021 settlement offer, which would have assigned Husband his entire retirement account (valued at over $93,000 and earned entirely during the marriage) and granted no spousal maintenance. The parties ultimately reported that they had reached informal agreements on the division of community property and debts, and the court set trial on Wife's request for spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month for 3 years. ¶4 At the beginning of trial, the p"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26261c14-bcdd-4f95-9c78-8453f8cd1b6f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371474-9371474","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371474","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: , which would have assigned Husband his entire retirement account (valued at over $93,000 and earned entirely during the marriage) and granted no spousal maintenance. The parties ultimately reported that they had reached informal agreements on the division of community property and debts, and the court set trial on Wife's request for spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month for 3 years. ¶4 At the beginning of trial, the parties recited the terms of a property settlement agreement on the record. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (\"Rule\") 69(a)(2). They agreed that Wife would receive $37,720 and Husband $30,113.23 (in effect, an equalization"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9371915 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 359437 Genesee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9371915 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urt Family Division LISA MARIE LYNCH, LC No. 20-331146-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and BOONSTRA and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right from the judgment of separate maintenance and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the trial court after a two-day evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were married in 1984 and have three adult children and no minor children. The parties separated in 2018, and defendant filed an action for separate maintenance. The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: th 50%--with her getting 50% of the pension1 upon [plaintiff's] retirement and the difference, which will be approximately $360, will be done by an income withholding order . . . . During his testimony, plaintiff agreed that there was an agreement on \"the pension and the spousal support issue.\" Plaintiff also agreed with his counsel's statements that his pension benefits would be reduced if he took early retirement, but that in any event \"the plan is still to pay [defendant] $4500 a month[.]\" Defendant also testified and agreed that her understanding was that she would receive $4,500 per month for the length of her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 359437 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LISA MARIE LYNCH, LC No. 20-331146-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and BOONSTRA and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right from the judgment of separate maintenance and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the trial court after a two-day evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were married in 1984 and have three adult children and no minor children. The parties separated in 2018, and defendant filed an action for separate maintenanc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"322173f0-2cfd-4e54-9831-d512c8a61271","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9371915-9371915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9371915","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"359437 Genesee Circuit","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: hat's the way the union set it up.\" For simplicity, we will continue to use the singular. -2- After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of separate maintenance providing, relevant to this appeal, that defendant would be designated a surviving spouse with plaintiff's pension plans through a QDRO if required by the pension plans. The judgment further awarded one-half of the daughter's student loan debt to each party as a division of marital debt, with $25,000 of the debt to be paid from the shared proceeds of the sale of the marital home. The judgment also awarded defendant a .22-caliber handgun, amongst"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e286c024-355d-4c82-8045-2fd95d466cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9372616 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9372616 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e286c024-355d-4c82-8045-2fd95d466cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e286c024-355d-4c82-8045-2fd95d466cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 5) November 19, 2020 Agreed Judgment Entry adopting Shared Parenting Plan and Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator with all subsequent decisions of Parenting Coordinator (dated January 20, 2021, April 27, 2021, and December 20, 2021). (6) July 13, 2021 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶8} Appellant claimed that her prior counsel, Attorney Baioni, officed at the same office as Attorney Reardon and was as an \"employee, contractor, member, agent, and/or representative of Attorney Reardon and/or Carrabine & Reardon Co., LPA at said office. Attorney Baioni's advertising expenses are paid, at least in part, by Attorney Reardon and/or C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e286c024-355d-4c82-8045-2fd95d466cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372616-9372616","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372616","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"514 N.E.2d 1122","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r 19, 2020 Agreed Judgment Entry adopting Shared Parenting Plan and Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator with all subsequent decisions of Parenting Coordinator (dated January 20, 2021, April 27, 2021, and December 20, 2021). (6) July 13, 2021 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶8} Appellant claimed that her prior counsel, Attorney Baioni, officed at the same office as Attorney Reardon and was as an \"employee, contractor, member, agent, and/or representative of Attorney Reardon and/or Carrabine & Reardon Co., LPA at said office. Attorney Baioni's advertising expenses are paid, at least in part, by Attorney Reardon and/or C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6c0e37c-de7b-48b7-b6ef-d2530f9a5519","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372779","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage included","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9372779 Extracted reporter citation: 578 F.3d 1337. Docket: of months of marriage included. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9372779 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6c0e37c-de7b-48b7-b6ef-d2530f9a5519","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372779","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage included","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6c0e37c-de7b-48b7-b6ef-d2530f9a5519","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372779","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage included","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2th District Court in Harris County, Texas , issued a final decree of divorce for the appellant and the intervenor. Id. at 27-59. That same day, the court issued a document entitled \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order Federal Employee's Retirement System\" (QDRO), which was sent to OPM for processing as a qualifying court order for dividing retirement benefits. See Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-16- 0461-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 9 at 9-13. However, OPM disapproved the QDRO as unacceptable on February 26, 1998, and returned it to the attorney for the intervenor. I-2 AF,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6c0e37c-de7b-48b7-b6ef-d2530f9a5519","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372779","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage included","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: appellant and the intervenor. Id. at 27-59. That same day, the court issued a document entitled \"Qualified Domestic Relations Order Federal Employee's Retirement System\" (QDRO), which was sent to OPM for processing as a qualifying court order for dividing retirement benefits. See Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-16- 0461-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 9 at 9-13. However, OPM disapproved the QDRO as unacceptable on February 26, 1998, and returned it to the attorney for the intervenor. I-2 AF, Tab 15 at 4-5. ¶3 Subsequently, the presiding court issued an \"Amended Order Dividing Civil Servic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6c0e37c-de7b-48b7-b6ef-d2530f9a5519","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9372779-9372779","title":"CourtListener opinion 9372779","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of months of marriage included","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F.3d 1337","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: egard are far from clear and are no doubt confusing to lay people and divorce attorneys engaged in developing property settlements involving Federal retirement benefits. 7 This figure does not include the $138.00 deduction for the cost of providing for a survivor annuity benefit to the intervenor in the event that the appellant predeceases her. The appellant does not challenge this. ID at 4. 8 In reaching these figures, it appears that the appellant modified his calculations in the following manner: (1) by dropping the repeating decimal places and rounding up the \"creditable service\" calculation (from .9652777… to .96"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9373588 Extracted reporter citation: 48 F.3d 1237. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9373588 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of the amendments to the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984. In Davenport v. Office of Personnel Management, 62 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the court found that OPM could consult a divorce decree when it clarified the meaning of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at issue. Here, we have found that the order was not ambiguous and therefore it needed no clarification. 7 issue here, including the provision she now challenges, which, she acknowledges, assured that she would continue to have needed health benefits following the divorce. To the extent the appellant now seeks to substitute terms in the order that wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of her former husband's annuity because he died while in service and had not yet applied for a retirement annuity, but that she was entitled to a survivor annuity in the amount of $1 per month, as provided for in the \"Court Order Acceptable for Processing Retirement Benefits (Federal Employees Retirement System….),\" signed by the parties and submitted by the appellant to OPM in 2012. Id. at 5-7. ¶4 On appeal, the appellant renewed her claim that the court order was not acceptable for processing when it was submitted because of confusing and ambiguous language between the divorce decree and the court order incident to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mendments to the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984. In Davenport v. Office of Personnel Management, 62 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the court found that OPM could consult a divorce decree when it clarified the meaning of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at issue. Here, we have found that the order was not ambiguous and therefore it needed no clarification. 7 issue here, including the provision she now challenges, which, she acknowledges, assured that she would continue to have needed health benefits following the divorce. To the extent the appellant now seeks to substitute terms in the order that wo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4c7dcfe7-38d9-4e0b-baa0-599dc817a632","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373588-9373588","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373588","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"48 F.3d 1237","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member Tristan L. Leavitt, Member FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying her survivor benefits as a former spouse. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9373706 Extracted reporter citation: 578 F. App'x 973. Docket: NUMBER MARSHALL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9373706 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Arlene Smith In re Paul D. Marshall v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-10- 0059-B-2, Final Order (Jan. 22, 2014), in which the Board determined that the appellant was not entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity based on a 1987 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 578 F. App'x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit remanded the appeal, instructing the Board to consider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: SHALL . . . , shall receive a sum equal to 20% of the Defendant's presently vested amount; 3 C. Said distribution to the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL, as alternative recipient shall be for the rest of her life, subject to the terms and conditions of said Retirement Plan. In the event of the death of the primary participant, . . . the said alternative recipien t, ARLENE MARSHALL, . . . shall be entitled to the surviving spouse's allowance as alternative beneficiary in the event said interest is greater than 20%, and in the event the primary participant has not named one or more alternative beneficiaries; however , in n"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nsider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL, shall retain a vested interest in the Defendant's pension with the Federal Civil Service Retirement System pursuant to a duly Qualified Domestic Order which the Court creates herein as follows: . . . B. At the time the primary participant, PAUL MARSHALL, actually receives his share of the pension; however, no later than his attaining the age of 65 years, Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL . . . , shall receive a su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aebc0ec-33ef-4a92-9828-928efd91faf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9373706-9373706","title":"CourtListener opinion 9373706","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER MARSHALL","extracted_reporter_citation":"578 F. App'x 973","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: th In re Paul D. Marshall v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-10- 0059-B-2, Final Order (Jan. 22, 2014), in which the Board determined that the appellant was not entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity based on a 1987 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 578 F. App'x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit remanded the appeal, instructing the Board to consider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e25e2fd-25c5-4f04-bcf8-7bd4a0444958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9376915 Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9376915 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e25e2fd-25c5-4f04-bcf8-7bd4a0444958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e25e2fd-25c5-4f04-bcf8-7bd4a0444958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ade impossible by husband and when the order was not an impermissible substantive change from the decree). We can analogize this 2009 agreed enforcement order—requiring Puls to make payments to Gaffin instead of to the organization or school—to an amended QDRO that requires payments to be made to a different alternate payee. In Quijano v. Quijano, the appellant contended that an amended QDRO was void because it made the child of the marriage the alternate payee when the decree had named the wife as the original alternate payee. 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no 13 pet.). Father a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e25e2fd-25c5-4f04-bcf8-7bd4a0444958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: impermissible substantive change from the decree). We can analogize this 2009 agreed enforcement order—requiring Puls to make payments to Gaffin instead of to the organization or school—to an amended QDRO that requires payments to be made to a different alternate payee. In Quijano v. Quijano, the appellant contended that an amended QDRO was void because it made the child of the marriage the alternate payee when the decree had named the wife as the original alternate payee. 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no 13 pet.). Father argued that the trial court changed the substantive division of pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e25e2fd-25c5-4f04-bcf8-7bd4a0444958","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376915-9376915","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376915","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"806 S.W.2d 791","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ruary 2008 and March 2009. At the hearing, the trial court \"disposed\" of the child-support arrearages that had occurred between February 2008 and March 2009.3 Gaffin then filed a supplemental motion for child-support enforcement and a motion to enforce the property division on June 4, 2009, arguing that Puls had failed to pay child support between April 2007 and January 2008, had failed to pay the children's tuition for the 2006 through 2009 school years, and had failed to make installment payments on the cash settlement since June 2004. Gaffin again requested contempt punishment and \"confirmation of all arrearages and ren"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f505e6b-cf2b-458f-bdc8-e01580ef25af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376981","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9376981 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF LILLIAN R. KRILICH. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9376981 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f505e6b-cf2b-458f-bdc8-e01580ef25af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376981","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f505e6b-cf2b-458f-bdc8-e01580ef25af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376981","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 1985; thus, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgment. ¶ 15 Smithberg, 192 Ill. 2d 291, is instructive. A judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered for James and Nancy Smithberg requiring James to designate Nancy as the sole recipient of his pension death benefit. Id. at 292-93. Subsequently, in violation of the court's order, James designated his second wife, Delores, as the recipient of his death benefit. Nancy filed a petition for rule to show cause why James should not be held in contempt for violating the judgment, but James died before the petition was ruled upon. Id. at 293-94. Our supreme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f505e6b-cf2b-458f-bdc8-e01580ef25af","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9376981-9376981","title":"CourtListener opinion 9376981","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n of the assets of a Florida estate.\" ¶8 Petitioners filed a response arguing that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce its dissolution judgment under Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291, 297-98 (2000) (\"Where a domestic relations order has been entered, the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order [citation], as further performance by the parties is often contemplated.\"). They argued that respondents' assertion that \"Donna and Walter, individually, do not have sufficient contacts with the State of Illinois for this Court to exert personal 1 The Krilich Children addit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee67f90a-9c16-45e1-86a6-ed761207920d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978","title":"CourtListener opinion 9377978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9377978 Extracted case name: WARNER v. DRIGGS-WARNER. Extracted reporter citation: 943 F.2d 1048. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9377978 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee67f90a-9c16-45e1-86a6-ed761207920d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978","title":"CourtListener opinion 9377978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee67f90a-9c16-45e1-86a6-ed761207920d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978","title":"CourtListener opinion 9377978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: orating his testimony. Husband asserted he ran out of time at trial to introduce any trial exhibits supporting his testimony, but we do not perceive any lack of opportunity to refer to the exhibits. Finding no error, we affirm this portion of the decree. 4. QDRO Specialist ¶37 Husband also contends that the court erred by not allowing a QDRO specialist to perform a tracing analysis of the retirement accounts. But the court is not required to appoint experts to help Husband prove his case. On remand, if implementation of the decree would benefit from the services of a QDRO specialist, the parties are free to engage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee67f90a-9c16-45e1-86a6-ed761207920d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978","title":"CourtListener opinion 9377978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . Husband challenges the superior court's evidentiary rulings, characterization and valuation date of several financial accounts, spousal maintenance award, child support award, and attorney's fees award. We vacate and remand the court's division of Husband's retirement accounts. We reverse Wife's spousal maintenance award. We vacate and remand Husband's child support obligation. In all other aspects, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced after more than twenty years of marriage. In November 2020, the superior court set trial for June 2021. Husband, a retired attorney, moved unsuccessfully to cont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ee67f90a-9c16-45e1-86a6-ed761207920d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9377978-9377978","title":"CourtListener opinion 9377978","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"943 F.2d 1048","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ena Cruz and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Peter C. Warner (\"Husband\") appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Kimberly Driggs-Warner (\"Wife\"). Husband challenges the superior court's evidentiary rulings, characterization and valuation date of several financial accounts, spousal maintenance award, child support award, and attorney's fees award. We vacate and remand the court's division of Husband's retirement accounts. We reverse Wife's spousal maintenance award. We vacate and remand Husband's child support obligation. In all other aspects, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9378518 Extracted reporter citation: 197 N.E.3d 1014. Docket: WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378518 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: CISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: March 10, 2023 ***** Theodore B. Tucker, III, for appellee. Sean P. Fitzgerald, Pro se. ***** DUHART, J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Sean Fitzgerald, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") issued by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, awarding appellee, Margaret Korfhage, a partial assignment of benefits under appellant's alternative retirement plan. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Statement of the Case {¶ 2} On November 14, 2019, the trial court issued a divorce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , Sean Fitzgerald, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") issued by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, awarding appellee, Margaret Korfhage, a partial assignment of benefits under appellant's alternative retirement plan. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Statement of the Case {¶ 2} On November 14, 2019, the trial court issued a divorce decision establishing the appellee would receive from appellant's TIAA Bowling Green State University Alternative Retirement Plan \"an amount to award her 70% of the parties' combined accounts.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the court, but is rather an enforcement mechanism pertaining to a trial court's previous judgment entry of divorce or dissolution. Ware v. Ware, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14 CA 28, 2014-Ohio-5410, ¶ 14. A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, because its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id. at ¶ 16. When a QDRO is inconsistent with th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e45e419-d1a1-48a0-8605-fe00b705b8cc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378518-9378518","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378518","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"197 N.E.3d 1014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: rts the following assignment of error on appeal: I. The trial court committed reversible error when it journalized a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Appellant's public retirement program under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rather than as a Division of Property Order as required by R.C. 3105.80 et. seq. 17. Analysis {¶ 16} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the retirement plan at issue is a public retirement program account and must be divided only pursuant to a Division of Property Order (\"DOPO\"), as provided under R.C. 3105.80 et seq., as oppose"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9378579 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. MSMC. Docket: 1-22-0530 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378579 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marriage between petitioner Keith Frisz and respondent Marilyn Frisz, Marilyn was to receive a percentage share of Keith's thrift savings plan account. The plan administrator of Keith's thrift savings plan account transferred money to Marilyn pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. However, Keith believed that Marilyn received an overpayment and brought a combined petition for an adjudication of indirect civil contempt and motion to enforce prior court orders as well as a motion for postjudgment relief, essentially seeking the court enforce its judgment for a dissolution of marriage and the qualified domestic relations order by r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ltimately, on April 17, 2020, the circuit court entered a judgment for a dissolution of marriage that incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the parties settled how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Under that provision, Marilyn was to receive \"a transfer equal to 39% of the value of the marital portion\" of the plan \"on the date of division as her sole and separate property, free and clear of any interest of Keith.\" The parties agreed that the transfer would be made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order and any cost"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: between petitioner Keith Frisz and respondent Marilyn Frisz, Marilyn was to receive a percentage share of Keith's thrift savings plan account. The plan administrator of Keith's thrift savings plan account transferred money to Marilyn pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. However, Keith believed that Marilyn received an overpayment and brought a combined petition for an adjudication of indirect civil contempt and motion to enforce prior court orders as well as a motion for postjudgment relief, essentially seeking the court enforce its judgment for a dissolution of marriage and the qualified domestic relations order by r"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1c9736aa-c66c-4e56-91aa-a72b6a20771b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378579-9378579","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378579","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0530 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: arital settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the parties settled how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Under that provision, Marilyn was to receive \"a transfer equal to 39% of the value of the marital portion\" of the plan \"on the date of division as her sole and separate property, free and clear of any interest of Keith.\" The parties agreed that the transfer would be made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order and any costs associated with the transfer would be divided equally. The remaining balance of Keith's thrift savings plan account would be a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9378758 Extracted reporter citation: 176 P.3d 645. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378758 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o way alter the 50% adjudicated to Wife. As such, Wife's requested clarification or correction would not modify the original judgment. [¶15] This case is similar to Wyland, 2006 WY 93, 138 P.3d 1165. There, the wife petitioned the district court to clarify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) when the United States Air Force was unable to divide husband's retirement benefits without further guidance. Id. ¶ 5, 138 P.3d at 1167. The court clarified its previous QDRO, adding a formula to effectuate the divorce decree's grant of 50% of husband's retirement benefits to the wife. Id. ¶ 6, 138 P.3d at 1167. This Court affirmed under Rule 60(a),"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: rced in 2003. During their marriage, Husband served in the military. The parties' stipulated Decree of Divorce (the \"Decree\") granted Wife \"an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of [Husband's] disposable retired pay\" under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. The use of \"months\" rather than \"reserve points\" in the formula prevented Wife from being able to collect her share of Husband's military retired pay. In 2021, Wife filed a motion for relief under W.R.C.P. 60(a) and (b)(6). The district court denied Wife's motion f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r the 50% adjudicated to Wife. As such, Wife's requested clarification or correction would not modify the original judgment. [¶15] This case is similar to Wyland, 2006 WY 93, 138 P.3d 1165. There, the wife petitioned the district court to clarify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) when the United States Air Force was unable to divide husband's retirement benefits without further guidance. Id. ¶ 5, 138 P.3d at 1167. The court clarified its previous QDRO, adding a formula to effectuate the divorce decree's grant of 50% of husband's retirement benefits to the wife. Id. ¶ 6, 138 P.3d at 1167. This Court affirmed under Rule 60(a),"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"597ab3c9-30a8-4e6a-9196-fa144cc44f9f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9378758-9378758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9378758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"176 P.3d 645","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: L. Stone (Wife) and Daryl D. Stone (Husband) were married in 1979 and divorced in 2003. During their marriage, Husband served in the military. The parties' stipulated Decree of Divorce (the \"Decree\") granted Wife \"an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of [Husband's] disposable retired pay\" under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. The use of \"months\" rather than \"reserve points\" in the formula prevented Wife from being able to collect her share of Husband's military retired pay. In 2021, Wife filed a motion for relief"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a175b788-9c85-46f9-b94c-723bbca96cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606","title":"CourtListener opinion 9381606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9381606 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9381606 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a175b788-9c85-46f9-b94c-723bbca96cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606","title":"CourtListener opinion 9381606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a175b788-9c85-46f9-b94c-723bbca96cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606","title":"CourtListener opinion 9381606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Williamson then failed to contact Dalton for a period of several months. Dalton eventually resorted to contacting the Circuit Court Clerk and she learned nothing had been filed finalizing her divorce. Dalton requested her case be put on the court's docket. At a hearing on July 30, 2019, at which Williamson appeared, the judge entered the final decr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a175b788-9c85-46f9-b94c-723bbca96cad","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9381606-9381606","title":"CourtListener opinion 9381606","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): se No. 18-CI-00035). Dalton paid Williamson $800 for her representation. Williamson filed the Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on February 23, 2018. At the final hearing, Williamson informed the family court Dalton wanted half of her husband's 401k. The Judge asked Williamson to draft the decree and asked Williamson how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Williamson then failed"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9383516 Extracted reporter citation: 231 A.3d 928. Docket: 806 WDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9383516 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: retirement benefit being paid as \"Disabled.\" N.T. at 14- 15; 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. Husband was 52 years old at the -2- J-S42043-22 time that he applied for and was found qualified for these benefits. 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. No Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) had been prepared and Husband did not provide the Marital Settlement Agreement to his employer or to the Plan. N.T. at 6, 19-20. The Plan paid the full monthly $3,249.81 benefits to Husband. Id. at 18-19; Pension Plan Payment Deposit Confirmations. On March 28, 2022, Wife filed a motion to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement alleging that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ment) and a divorce decree was issued on November 7, 2014. The ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S42043-22 Marital Settlement Agreement provided the following with respect to pension and retirement benefits: Wife shall receive 40% of the marital portion of Husband's Municipal Police Pension fund valued at the date of separation. It is acknowledged that Husband began his employment with the Wilkinsburg Police Department on April 12, 1994, the parties married on May 20, 1995 and separated on February 4, 2012. It is also acknowledged that the parties shal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lement Agreement) and a divorce decree was issued on November 7, 2014. The ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S42043-22 Marital Settlement Agreement provided the following with respect to pension and retirement benefits: Wife shall receive 40% of the marital portion of Husband's Municipal Police Pension fund valued at the date of separation. It is acknowledged that Husband began his employment with the Wilkinsburg Police Department on April 12, 1994, the parties married on May 20, 1995 and separated on February 4, 2012. It is also acknowledg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6c35be3a-7d50-48af-8057-dc4052857626","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9383516-9383516","title":"CourtListener opinion 9383516","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"806 WDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t benefit being paid as \"Disabled.\" N.T. at 14- 15; 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. Husband was 52 years old at the -2- J-S42043-22 time that he applied for and was found qualified for these benefits. 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. No Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) had been prepared and Husband did not provide the Marital Settlement Agreement to his employer or to the Plan. N.T. at 6, 19-20. The Plan paid the full monthly $3,249.81 benefits to Husband. Id. at 18-19; Pension Plan Payment Deposit Confirmations. On March 28, 2022, Wife filed a motion to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement alleging that"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2021b436-fd1a-4234-a8f9-19b18d2a323d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995","title":"CourtListener opinion 9387995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9387995 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9387995 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2021b436-fd1a-4234-a8f9-19b18d2a323d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995","title":"CourtListener opinion 9387995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2021b436-fd1a-4234-a8f9-19b18d2a323d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995","title":"CourtListener opinion 9387995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: hat: (1) The pro se appellant (\"Husband\") filed this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee (\"Wife\") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2021b436-fd1a-4234-a8f9-19b18d2a323d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995","title":"CourtListener opinion 9387995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee (\"Wife\") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife's counsel complied"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2021b436-fd1a-4234-a8f9-19b18d2a323d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9387995-9387995","title":"CourtListener opinion 9387995","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The pro se appellant (\"Husband\") filed this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee (\"Wife\") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9388732 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: that each party accepted. As the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9388732 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ENTITLED TO HALF OF HIS MILITARY RETIREMENT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 60(B)(5).\" THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: \"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PARTY'S INTENT ONCE IT DETERMINED THAT QDRO WAS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO APPELLANT'S MILITARY RETIREMENT.\" {¶2} On November 2, 2002, the parties married for the third time. On July 30, 2020 the parties filed their petition for dissolution and separation agreement that, inter alia, addressed appellant's military retirement: The wife will receive a monthly sum of $1445.00 per month from milit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s married for the third time. On July 30, 2020 the parties filed their petition for dissolution and separation agreement that, inter alia, addressed appellant's military retirement: The wife will receive a monthly sum of $1445.00 per month from military retirement benefits. This shall begin August 2, [2]020 payable on or before the 10th of each month. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will issue. The husband will pay the benefits directly to the wife until the month they are withheld from his retirement. Each party will receive and maintain all rights to any other retirement benefits, annuities, 401K or sim"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and ended September 2020, and (2) appellee waived all spousal support because the parties agreed that appellee would receive one-half of appellant's military retirement benefit. Further, appellee agreed not to pursue any division of appellant's teacher's pension because he had only taught for the past 10 or 11 years - \"I just felt like that's what we were together through was the military career. We made an agreement that I would take care of the kids and everything, he would do his military career.\" {¶6} Appellee's trial counsel also testified at the hearing and recalled appellant's statement in a July offi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"980e6b71-6a5e-4416-a991-c5680e52b8a2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9388732-9388732","title":"CourtListener opinion 9388732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"that each party accepted. As the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"351 N.E.2d 113","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): lified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will issue. The husband will pay the benefits directly to the wife until the month they are withheld from his retirement. Each party will receive and maintain all rights to any other retirement benefits, annuities, 401K or similar benefits or work-related benefits he/she has at the time of this Agreement except as may be otherwise set forth herein. {¶3} At the parties' September 25, 2020 hearing, appellee appeared with counsel and appellant appeared pro se. When asked 3 LAWRENCE, 22CA2 if he wished to retain counsel, appellant stated, \"Um, there's some things in t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9389175 Docket: of bases upon which the family. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9389175 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 82 S.E.2d 510 (1989). i ARMSTEAD, Justice: Petitioner Carl A. (\"Husband\") and Respondent Deborah A. (\"Wife\") were divorced by final order entered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (\"circuit court\") in September of 2000. The circuit court entered a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") in March of 2001. Over nineteen years later, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO. The Family Court of Kanawha County (\"family court\") denied this motion on August 31, 2021. It determined that the QDRO and the final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and that when such a confl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: r, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO. The Family Court of Kanawha County (\"family court\") denied this motion on August 31, 2021. It determined that the QDRO and the final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and that when such a conflict exists, the QDRO must be enforced. On appeal, Husband argues that the family court erred by concluding that the QDRO, rather than the final divorce order, must control the division of his retirement benefit. After review, we find that Husband's motion to vacate the QDRO, filed over nineteen years after the QDRO was enter"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ere divorced by final order entered by the circuit court on September 25, 2000. Both parties were represented by counsel when the divorce order was entered. The divorce order lists the following as a marital asset belonging to Wife: \"[Husband]'s Retirement Pension as of [the] date of the parties['] separation on April 30, 2000. [Wife] shall be responsible for payment of all taxes and penalties incurred as a result of the transfer of the retirement to her.\" Additionally, the divorce order provides: 1 \"RETIREMENT - [Wife] shall receive pursuant to a QDRO as her sole property [Husband]'s pension/retirement in the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33f407e2-4c49-4825-99fd-d890248df5e4","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9389175-9389175","title":"CourtListener opinion 9389175","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of bases upon which the family","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ded that [i]n West Virginia, it is the QDRO which determines the allocation of retirement benefits. As this Court has noted, under the Internal Revenue Code, a QDRO is defined as a domestic relations order ‘which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.' 26 U.S.C. §414(p)(1)(A)(I). Accordingly, the terms of the QDRO must control in this case. Id. at *16-17 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 5 discretion standard. We review questions of law de"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac69aff-9936-4d48-a5f9-389c5501c71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208","title":"CourtListener opinion 9390208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9390208 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9390208 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac69aff-9936-4d48-a5f9-389c5501c71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208","title":"CourtListener opinion 9390208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ac69aff-9936-4d48-a5f9-389c5501c71b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9390208-9390208","title":"CourtListener opinion 9390208","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: S.P.R. 455, 460 (1994). ORDER ¶3 On remand, OPM is hereby ORDERED to take the following actions: (1) explain how the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage meets the requirements of a court order acceptable for processing and whether the lack of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order renders the court order unacceptable; (2) determine 3 On April 12, 2019, May 24, 2019, August 29, 2020, March 30, 2021, May 10, 2021, and December 22, 2021, the appellant filed motions to submit additional pleadings in which, although unclear, he appears to raise arguments concerning the merits of the appeal. PFR File, Tabs 9, 12, 23, 27, 30, 34. We d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9391406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA22-448. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9391406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: relief the court deems necessary under equity or law. The trial court denied the motion on 28 January 2022, holding as conclusions of law: a. The Schwab IRA account has not been proven to be a \"qualified retirement plan\" pursuant to ERISA and, thus, a QDRO or DRO is inapplicable and not the appropriate mechanism for distribution thereof; -4- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court b. The 2008 Consent Order specifically addressed the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the Schwab IRA, and the Order did not include language for entry of a QDRO or DRO as the mechanism for division and distrib"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a second appeal in the same matter.1 Where before this Court reviewed a trial court's denial of a contempt and Rule 70 motion, we now consider whether a motion for entry of a domestic relations order is a proper mechanism for distribution of an individual retirement account under the circumstances or constitutes an action subject to the statute of limitations. 1 For the previous case, see Welch v. Welch (Welch I), 278 N.C. App. 375, 859 S.E.2d 646 (2021) (unpublished). WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court I. Background Mr. and Ms. Welch were married on 19 June 1981. On 30 January 2007, an action for divorce, child cu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or by domestic relations order or other -6- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court appropriate order.\" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20.1(g) (2022) (emphasis added). This method of distribution \"appl[ies] to all vested and nonvested pension, retirement, and deferred compensation plans, programs, systems, or funds, including . . . individual retirement accounts within the definitions of Internal Revenue Code sections 408 and 408A.\" § 50-20.1(h) (emphasis added). Section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code defines an \"individual retirement account\" as \"a trust created or organized in the Unite"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"940a3193-b014-47b5-bfa7-7289e06fc300","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9391406-9391406","title":"CourtListener opinion 9391406","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"COA22-448","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: part of all further relief the court deems necessary under equity or law. The trial court denied the motion on 28 January 2022, holding as conclusions of law: a. The Schwab IRA account has not been proven to be a \"qualified retirement plan\" pursuant to ERISA and, thus, a QDRO or DRO is inapplicable and not the appropriate mechanism for distribution thereof; -4- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court b. The 2008 Consent Order specifically addressed the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the Schwab IRA, and the Order did not include language for entry of a QDRO or DRO as the mechanism for di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9392535 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jones. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9392535 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aring plan transferred into her name although there is no corresponding domestic relations order. The plan at issue is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). To complete the transfer, ERISA requires the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to Iowa domestic relations law. At the time a petition was filed in this matter, Mary Kathryn and Douglas Wallace were happily married and opposed to seeking a domestic relations order through divorce or separate maintenance proceedings. In the absence of a divorce or separate maintenance proceeding, the district court refused to grant"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: full-time. In order to accomplish their retirement goals, Douglas executed a power of attorney authorizing Mary Kathryn to act as his attorney- in-fact. The Wallaces' financial advisor agreed with that position and recommended transferring Douglas's 401(k) retirement plan into Mary Kathryn's name for long-term estate and tax planning purposes. The Wallaces first attempted to transfer the plan in November 2021. They executed an interspousal agreement pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 597 and asked the district court to enforce it with a domestic relations order. The court denied their petition for three reasons: First, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ISA is an enormously complicated statute,\" we provide an overview of the statute, its spendthrift (or nonalienation) provision, and QDROs. Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d 225, 237 (3d Cir. 2007). In 1974, Congress enacted 6 ERISA to regulate private pension plans in the United States. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C. and 29 U.S.C.). ERISA \"prescribe[s] various disclosure and reporting requirements, participation and vesting standards, fiduciary obligations, criminal penalties, and civil enforcement pro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"273ed156-a6ee-468e-a392-2c8afd3e24f3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9392535-9392535","title":"CourtListener opinion 9392535","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Mary Kathryn Wallace seeks to have her late husband's 401(k) profit- sharing plan transferred into her name although there is no corresponding domestic relations order. The plan at issue is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). To complete the transfer, ERISA requires the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to Iowa domestic relations law. At the time a petition was filed in this matter, Mary Kathryn and Douglas Wallace were happily married and opposed to seeking a domestic relations order through divorce or separate maintenance proceedings"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9393313 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Schneider. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.E.2d 177. Docket: 4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9393313 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: eld: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred when it (1) denied his request for maintenance; (2) awarded Heidi her entire pension; (3) required the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ncurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred when it (1) denied his request for maintenance; (2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tice DeArmond and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"13d3f48e-0306-464d-8c17-442901bf188b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9393313-9393313","title":"CourtListener opinion 9393313","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"824 N.E.2d 177","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006(a) (West 2020)), \"[a] debtor's interest in or right *** to *** payments under a retirement plan is exempt from judgment.\" However, section 1056(d) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d) (2020)) provides that a valid QDRO creates or recognizes a former spouse's right to receive \"all or a portion\" of benefits payable to a participant under a qualifying retirement plan. The parties do not dispute Heidi's 401(k) was a qualifying plan under ERISA. Additionally, \"our supreme court has held that it is ‘beyond dispute'"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9394100 Extracted case name: MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARCUS L. VANOVER. Extracted reporter citation: 634 S.W.3d 589. Docket: 2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9394100 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: D. She has been deemed 100% disabled by her doctor. She currently has no source of income and was awarded liquid assets of only $4000 and her 2005 truck from the marital property. While she was also awarded half of Chad's retirement, to be divided via a QDRO,3 she should not have to drain funds needed for her future to survive now. Shannon is only in her early fifties and could easily live significantly longer. Retirement funds should not be deemed a readily available source of income for Shannon to meet her present-day needs. See Naramore v. Naramore, 611 S.W.3d 281, 288 (Ky. App. 2020). See also Daunhauer"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Knox Circuit Court's order allocating assets between Shannon and Chad Toy Ferguson, a formerly married couple. We reverse the trial court as to the maintenance award (in both the amount and duration), and we reverse the circuit court's division of Chad's retirement account and remand for further consideration of the date of valuation but we affirm the trial court in all other respects. FACTS The parties married in 1994 and had three children, all of whom have reached majority. The parties separated in September 2018. Shannon filed her petition for dissolution of marriage the following month. Besides asking for the marr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: h the maintenance award can be reduced or eliminated.\" Calloway v. Calloway, 832 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Ky. App. 1992). However, on remand, the court shall enter an order of maintenance in an amount and duration that considers all factors of KRS 403.200(2). 2. PENSION We affirm the circuit court's 50% division of Chad's pension but reverse and remand on the issue of whether the date of the pension's valuation should be the date of the parties' separation or the date dissolution was granted. In Thielmeier v. Thielmeier, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 2021-SC-0532-DG, 2022 WL 17726617 (Ky. 2022), the Kentucky Supreme Court clea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4786e5b7-0a09-4e66-a36c-89a4fc3bf96d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9394100-9394100","title":"CourtListener opinion 9394100","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"634 S.W.3d 589","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ion's valuation should be the date of the parties' separation or the date dissolution was granted. In Thielmeier v. Thielmeier, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 2021-SC-0532-DG, 2022 WL 17726617 (Ky. 2022), the Kentucky Supreme Court clearly held that a party's -12- 401(k) (a type of retirement account) had to be valued as of the date of the divorce for purposes of determining the value of the marital estate, but that the family court had discretion to divide the marital estate in just proportions (not necessarily evenly) and also a duty to make findings explaining why its division was just under KRS 403.190: When divid"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9396619 Docket: 0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9396619 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: es that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in excess of $1,000. -2- On the date of the entry of the final decree of divorce, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") in relation to husband's \"Ernst & Young Partnership Defined Benefit Retirement Plan\" (\"defined benefit plan\"). The QDRO provided that wife would receive half of husband's benefits from the plan. At the same time, the circuit court entered another QDRO in relation to husband's \"Ernst & Young Partnership Retirement Plan\" (\"profit-sharing plan\"),"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ach be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement.\" Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retirement benefits. In Paragraph 24, the PSA addresses attorney fees, providing for the award of reasonable attorney fees to a party who either enforced provisions of or defended claims against the PSA. Paragraph 29 of the PSA states that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of divorce which affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the parties' PSA. Relevant to these appeals, the PSA provides, in Paragraph 16(A), that \"[t]he parties agree to equally divide the following retirement assets,\" including husband's \"Ernst & Young LLP pension, which yields a total of approximately $20,000 per month.\" In addition, \"[t]he parties will each be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement.\" Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6197522-5e25-4b0c-a307-946bb74a0996","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396619-9396619","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396619","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ph 16(G) states that \"[e]ach party hereby warrants and represents that except as specifically identified hereinabove, he or she has no other retirement accounts or benefits of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to IRAs, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, deferred compensation plans, profit sharing plans, pensions or annuities.\" Additionally, in Paragraph 29, the agreement provides that [t]he above and foregoing [a]greement of the parties is predicated upon the fact that each of the parties hereto has made a full, complete and total disclosure to the other of the nature and extent of all the ass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9396624 Docket: 0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9396624 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: es that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in excess of $1,000. -2- On the date of the entry of the final decree of divorce, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") in relation to husband's \"Ernst & Young Partnership Defined Benefit Retirement Plan\" (\"defined benefit plan\"). The QDRO provided that wife would receive half of husband's benefits from the plan. At the same time, the circuit court entered another QDRO in relation to husband's \"Ernst & Young Partnership Retirement Plan\" (\"profit-sharing plan\"),"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ach be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement.\" Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retirement benefits. In Paragraph 24, the PSA addresses attorney fees, providing for the award of reasonable attorney fees to a party who either enforced provisions of or defended claims against the PSA. Paragraph 29 of the PSA states that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of divorce which affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the parties' PSA. Relevant to these appeals, the PSA provides, in Paragraph 16(A), that \"[t]he parties agree to equally divide the following retirement assets,\" including husband's \"Ernst & Young LLP pension, which yields a total of approximately $20,000 per month.\" In addition, \"[t]he parties will each be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement.\" Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retir"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cb860ad-e1b1-43c6-836f-3f7f390dd835","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9396624-9396624","title":"CourtListener opinion 9396624","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ph 16(G) states that \"[e]ach party hereby warrants and represents that except as specifically identified hereinabove, he or she has no other retirement accounts or benefits of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to IRAs, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, deferred compensation plans, profit sharing plans, pensions or annuities.\" Additionally, in Paragraph 29, the agreement provides that [t]he above and foregoing [a]greement of the parties is predicated upon the fact that each of the parties hereto has made a full, complete and total disclosure to the other of the nature and extent of all the ass"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9398343 Extracted reporter citation: 922 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9398343 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: E. BROWN 109 East High St. 40 North Main Street Mt. Vernon, OH 43050 Mansfield, OH 44902 Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant appeals the September 14, 2022 judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, adopting appellee's proposed QDRO. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellee Michael Earnest (\"Husband\") and appellant Julie Perkins Earnest (\"Wife\") were married on June 18, 1988. Husband filed a complaint for divorce on January 27, 2021. {¶3} The parties, their counsel, the magistrate, and the trial court judge each signed an agreed judgment entry and decree of divorce that was fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , of Husband's FTP 401(k) as of 10/31/2018, and Husband shall retain the balance. 10/31/2018 shall be the valuation date. Husband is the Plan Participant and Wife is the Alternate Payee. Husband shall cause a QDRO to be prepared and filed to divide the retirement account. The parties shall share equally in the cost of preparation and filing of the QDRO. Otherwise, each party shall retain any retirement benefits or accounts that they have accumulated in their individual names free and clear of any claim on the part of the other and each waives any interest in the other's retirement account. This includes Wife's rig"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 1, 2018. {¶4} The original agreed judgment entry and decree of divorce contained a clerical error. The language in the \"accounts\" portion of the original judgment entry stated \"Wife shall retain 50% of the statement balance, less $29.020, of Husband's FTP 401(k).\" The parties agreed the correct number was $29,020, not $29.020. Upon Husband's motion, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry on September 14, 2022, correcting the number. Each of the parties, their counsel, and the trial judge signed the nunc pro tunc entry. {¶5} Specifically at issue in this appeal is the language contained in the divorce d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9086928c-73e9-4ada-8422-eef6044d7b08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9398343-9398343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9398343","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"922 N.E.2d 214","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ree states as follows: Wife shall retain 50% of the statement balance, less $29,020, of Husband's FTP 401(k) as of 10/31/2018, and Husband shall retain the balance. 10/31/2018 shall be the valuation date. Husband is the Plan Participant and Wife is the Alternate Payee. Husband shall cause a QDRO to be prepared and filed to divide the retirement account. The parties shall share equally in the cost of preparation and filing of the QDRO. Otherwise, each party shall retain any retirement benefits or accounts that they have accumulated in their individual names free and clear of any claim on the part of the other an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9402928 Extracted reporter citation: 154 S.W.3d 93. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9402928 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rce in Harris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QDROs. In April 2020, Criswell's counsel filed a decree and prove-up submission for the divorce, which was subsequently granted by the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ith Jevon Criswell married in December 2000 and separated nineteen years later. In January 2020, Criswell filed for divorce in Harris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QD"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QDROs. In April 2020, Criswell's counsel filed a decree and prove-up submission for the divorce, which was subsequently granted by the c"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6eae3b9f-db0b-4bcf-b4fd-8b5b8f9e5941","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9402928-9402928","title":"CourtListener opinion 9402928","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"154 S.W.3d 93","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)). B. Analysis 1. Meritorious Defense Jenkins first alleges that Criswell failed to allege a meritorious defense. Criswell responds that she was entitled to a fair and equitable division of the community property accumulated during the marriage and was unable to make the defense due to Jenkins's attempt to run out the clock on the court's plenary power. \"[A]s a pretrial matter,\" the complainant must \"present prima facie proof to support the contention\" that she has a meritorious defense, which has the purpose of assuring the court \"that valuable judicial resour"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9403130 Extracted case name: CASWELL v. CASWELL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9403130 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: under [Koelsch].\" Paragraph 11 of the Stipulated DRO provides that [t]he Court retains jurisdiction to amend this Order but only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining its acceptance to the relevant System or Plan, and to supervise the payment of retirement benefits as provided in the Order to [Wife]. (Emphasis added.) No party appealed from the Stipulated DRO, which was an appealable order under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2). See Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (recognizing right to appeal from domestic relations order as a special order entered after final judgment). ¶6 Almost six months aft"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ge of Shanen Caswell (\"Wife\") and Shawn Caswell (\"Husband\") by consent decree (the \"Consent Decree\"), the superior court entered a stipulated domestic relations order (the \"Stipulated DRO\") providing for the distribution of the community interest in Husband's pension benefits upon his retirement. More than 18 months later, and over Husband's objection, the court entered an amended Domestic Relations Order (the \"Amended DRO\") requiring Husband to make monthly payments to Wife until he retires pursuant to Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986). Husband appeals from the Amended DRO. ¶2 When it entered the Stipulated DRO"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: separate special concurrence in which Presiding Judge Cruz joined. K I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 After dissolving the marriage of Shanen Caswell (\"Wife\") and Shawn Caswell (\"Husband\") by consent decree (the \"Consent Decree\"), the superior court entered a stipulated domestic relations order (the \"Stipulated DRO\") providing for the distribution of the community interest in Husband's pension benefits upon his retirement. More than 18 months later, and over Husband's objection, the court entered an amended Domestic Relations Order (the \"Amended DRO\") requiring Husband to make monthly payments to Wife until he retires pursuant to Koelsch v. Koelsc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b8ba53c-52ae-4fb7-8289-7a84185af3f9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9403130-9403130","title":"CourtListener opinion 9403130","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rt order presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Chopin v. Chopin, 224 Ariz. 425, 427, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). ¶10 The Arizona Supreme Court recognized in Koelsch that the portion of an employee pension that was earned during the employee's marriage is community property subject to equitable division upon dissolution of the employee's marriage. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181. Noting that, after dissolution, the non-employee spouse will not begin to receive his or her share of the pension benefits until the employee spouse retires, the Koelsch court found that an employee spouse's decision to delay retirement after dissolution \"d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9407350 Extracted case name: SPELTZ v. SPELTZ. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9407350 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d retirement accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence (\"Gilbert Property\") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of the military retirement payments he received after the termination"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the parties' personal property, real property, and retirement accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence (\"Gilbert Property\") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nt accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDRO\"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence (\"Gilbert Property\") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of the military retirement payments he received after the termination"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fa63314b-3622-4011-acc8-3c6b35296bf3","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407350-9407350","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407350","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: meaning should not be assigned to part of the language which would render another part meaningless, nor remake the language to alter the existing rights or obligations.\"). Moreover, it would conflict with the Decree's stated intention of equally dividing the community property and the court's duty to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of property. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). We therefore conclude the court did not err by enforcing the Decree's plain language dividing the community portion of Robert's military retirement as of the termination of the marital community. II. The Superior Court Properly Denied Robert's Cross Petition f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9407392 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9407392 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (hereafter a QDRO). (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).)\" (In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) 4 David is a cinematographer in the motion picture industry. 5 regarding the sale, acceptance of offers, David's right of first refusal, and the division of the proceeds from the sale. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the assistance of a private mediator. The Settlement Agreement was incorporated into a judgment entered on January 19, 2019 (2019 Judgment). The Settlement Agreement provides for the division of the parties' assets including, as relevant here, two of David's retirement accounts. Specifically, paragraph 1.C states that the \"community portion\" of his \"Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan (accrued benefits) xx4739 [MPI plan]\" \"shall be equally 4 divided per QDRO3 by the time rule/Brown by Louise Nixon. The fees and costs for Ms. Nixon shall be equally divided by the Parties. [David's] separate property shall be confirmed to him.\""}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , 2019 (2019 Judgment). The Settlement Agreement provides for the division of the parties' assets including, as relevant here, two of David's retirement accounts. Specifically, paragraph 1.C states that the \"community portion\" of his \"Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan (accrued benefits) xx4739 [MPI plan]\" \"shall be equally 4 divided per QDRO3 by the time rule/Brown by Louise Nixon. The fees and costs for Ms. Nixon shall be equally divided by the Parties. [David's] separate property shall be confirmed to him.\" Paragraph 1.D, titled \"Dave's Motion Picture IAP Plan (defined contribution) xx4739 [IAP plan],\" states t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"71374d7f-8746-497a-a6cf-a58b820facc1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9407392-9407392","title":"CourtListener opinion 9407392","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"16 Cal.4th 67","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ses for sale, the private mediator \"shall select the broker as a binding arbitrator.\" The private mediator was also to resolve any dispute 3 \"Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (hereafter a QDRO). (29 U.S.C."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9411887 Extracted case name: MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT APPEALS FROM BARREN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE MICA WOOD PENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 110 S.W.3d 336. Docket: 2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9411887 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: intenance, noting that she had received $110,457.00 from the sale of the house and approximately $11,000.00 from the sale of personal property, and that she would be allocated a share of his retirement benefits through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She also received $673.00 per month in social security benefits. Neil included his final verified disclosure statement in a supplemental filing stating that he was retired and earned $8,206.44 per month through retirement and social security benefits. They owned several marital vehicles, including a 2014 Ford Pickup with $18,000.00 in equity, a 2019 M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pre-trial disclosure, Neil disputed that Sheryl was entitled to maintenance, noting that she had received $110,457.00 from the sale of the house and approximately $11,000.00 from the sale of personal property, and that she would be allocated a share of his retirement benefits through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She also received $673.00 per month in social security benefits. Neil included his final verified disclosure statement in a supplemental filing stating that he was retired and earned $8,206.44 per month through retirement and social security benefits. They owned several marital vehicles, including a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Sheryl moved the court to alter, amend, or vacate the order pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05 and for amendment or additional findings pursuant to CR 52.02. Her arguments were related to the awards of stock accounts, the retirement/pension accounts, personal injury money, and -7- maintenance. She requested additional findings as to her ability to support herself, noting that the court had only stated that she could flip burgers. In addition, she stated that she had sought $4,000.00 in temporary maintenance, which was discussed at the March 31, 2021, hearing but not ruled on due to the q"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a334c9f4-c909-4348-99cc-f0877a5f7107","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9411887-9411887","title":"CourtListener opinion 9411887","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: resumption of KRS 403.190(3) frees the court from the perils of such speculation. Again, it fell to William to provide proof sufficient to identify the specific amount of the settlement proceeds that were non-marital. William's uncertainty whether the non-marital portion represented merely \"the bulk [or] the entirety\" of the proceeds assures us that even William himself can do no more than speculate. Keeney, 2011 WL 336719, at *3. We cannot hold that the mixed asset analysis in Keeney has any application to the retirement benefit in this case. In Muir v. Muir, 406 S.W.3d 31 (Ky. App. 2013), this Court addressed trac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9412697 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412697 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: g husband from \"disposing and/or encumbering any assets . . . , except as necessary in the ordinary course of business and only as mutually and expressly agreed to by the [p]arties.\" Husband argues that 8 On the same day, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order transferring 4,355 shares of Falco common stock to wife from \"the Falco eMotors Inc. 401K Plan F/B/O Rakesh Dhawan.\" 9 Wife argues that husband's objections were not timely and did not preserve his arguments for appeal because they were filed after the entry of the final order of divorce. We disagree, as the circuit court expressly granted the parties lea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ffered to value Falco at \"approximately Despite finding that the accounts were marital, the circuit court did not divide Falco's 7 PayPal account and Wells Fargo checking account. -7- $200,000,\" based on an exhibit that was prepared for \"purposes of the 401(k),\" and allow husband to pay wife a monetary award for her share. Wife objected and argued that she \"had asked not to distribute Falco USA because the valuation was . . . not represented\" by that exhibit. Wife asked the circuit court to equalize the Falco shares, which it did. Next, the circuit court considered debts that \"were taken out\" by husband or F"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: from \"disposing and/or encumbering any assets . . . , except as necessary in the ordinary course of business and only as mutually and expressly agreed to by the [p]arties.\" Husband argues that 8 On the same day, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order transferring 4,355 shares of Falco common stock to wife from \"the Falco eMotors Inc. 401K Plan F/B/O Rakesh Dhawan.\" 9 Wife argues that husband's objections were not timely and did not preserve his arguments for appeal because they were filed after the entry of the final order of divorce. We disagree, as the circuit court expressly granted the parties lea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b3aa5b24-d6b2-453f-97ed-81c9452a3000","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412697-9412697","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412697","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Falco. After wife filed her pleadings, husband removed wife as a director of Falco, claiming that she stole money from the company. Husband opposed wife's emergency 1 The parties were equal shareholders in Falco India. The circuit court did not \"make any equitable distribution of this asset,\" which is not challenged on appeal. Therefore, all references to Falco in this opinion are to the American corporation. -2- motion and denied her claims that he was \"wasting\" corporate funds. On January 31, 2020, the parties appeared before the circuit court for argument on wife's emergency motion. Husband agreed \"to provide a full detail"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0078d5-9ddb-4734-b262-025a8005d9fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412769","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9412769 Extracted case name: PALADINO v. MACGURN. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412769 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0078d5-9ddb-4734-b262-025a8005d9fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412769","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0078d5-9ddb-4734-b262-025a8005d9fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412769","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2 months starting March 1, 2004; (2) $47,568.75 as equalization of community assets; (3) $90,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) $6,972.34 of costs. The Decree also awarded Paladino a portion of Macgurn's pension plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would be issued later to specifically direct the distribution of those benefits. ¶4 On April 22, 2005, the court awarded Paladino's share of pension plan benefits requiring Macgurn to distribute $286,700.29 to her (QDRO). After Macgurn did not comply, Paladino sought to enforce the QDRO. The court eventually issued a civil arrest warrant and entered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0078d5-9ddb-4734-b262-025a8005d9fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412769","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rior court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the superior court's denial of Macgurn's motions to invalidate and vacate the three judgments against him. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Superior Court Enters the Decree Judgment, Fee Judgment, and Pension Plan Judgment. ¶2 Before the superior court entered the decree dissolving the marriage between Macgurn and Paladino in 2004, Macgurn filed a written objection to Paladino's proposed form of judgment. Macgurn objected to the two paragraphs in the proposed Decree with text that permitted prejudgment interest, arguing that \"[n]o interest should accrue . . . u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0078d5-9ddb-4734-b262-025a8005d9fa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412769-9412769","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412769","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: spousal maintenance over 12 months starting March 1, 2004; (2) $47,568.75 as equalization of community assets; (3) $90,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) $6,972.34 of costs. The Decree also awarded Paladino a portion of Macgurn's pension plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would be issued later to specifically direct the distribution of those benefits. ¶4 On April 22, 2005, the court awarded Paladino's share of pension plan benefits requiring Macgurn to distribute $286,700.29 to her (QDRO). After Macgurn did not comply, Paladino sought to enforce the QDRO. The court eventually issued a civil arrest warrant and en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9412804 Extracted reporter citation: 221 A.3d 192. Docket: 1604 MDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412804 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oday. Wife will keep her Pennsylvania School System Employees Retirement Systems pension 100 percent. . . . The parties shall execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement including the preparation of any Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO2] or any other document necessary to transfer funds to or from the respective retirement accounts. PNA, 12/2/15, at 2-3, 5. The PNA required that three QDROs be drafted within 30 days of the December 2, 2015 date. It was not until nearly four years later, however, on June 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Ag"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: shall execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement including the preparation of any Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO2] or any other document necessary to transfer funds to or from the respective retirement accounts. PNA, 12/2/15, at 2-3, 5. The PNA required that three QDROs be drafted within 30 days of the December 2, 2015 date. It was not until nearly four years later, however, on June 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Agreement) for a domestic relations order regarding Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement Syst"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: record before divorce master, Louis Shucker, Esquire, as follows: ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 The PNA was not merged with the divorce decree. J-S24018-23 [Husband's] military pension and his State Police pension will be divided 60 percent to [W]ife and 40 percent to [H]usband. [Husband's] deferred compensation plan will be divided the first [$]30,000 to [H]usband, [and] the remainder of the deferred compensation to be split 50/50 between the parties. [Husband's] Vanguard mutual fund will also be split 60 percent to [W]ife, 40 perc"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eba65c09-259f-4893-a291-f401b0307962","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9412804-9412804","title":"CourtListener opinion 9412804","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1604 MDA 2022","extracted_reporter_citation":"221 A.3d 192","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: une 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Agreement) for a domestic relations order regarding Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) State Police Pension. The Agreement provides, in part, that Wife (Alternate Payee) would receive 60% of the marital portion of Husband's (Member of SERS) retirement benefit, using the coverture fraction (numerator is SERS Member's years of credited service for the period from date of marriage to date of separation; denominator is total years of Member's service). Id. at ¶ 6. Both parties acknowledged that Husband's benefit was in pa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9449263 Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 45. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9449263 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Verzal v. Verzal 55 is misplaced. The Court of Appeals determined that it was an abuse of discretion under the spe- cific facts of that case to order a cash equalization payment in excess of liquid assets instead of making a qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) to divide the husband's retirement account. 56 The Court of Appeals did not determine that a trial court can never order an equalization payment in excess of a party's liquid assets. Additionally, Verzal is factually dis- tinguishable from the present case. The trial court in Verzal had classified the husband's retirement account as a marital asset but awa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: urt of Appeals did not determine that a trial court can never order an equalization payment in excess of a party's liquid assets. Additionally, Verzal is factually dis- tinguishable from the present case. The trial court in Verzal had classified the husband's retirement account as a marital asset but awarded it in its entirety to the husband. The trial court then ordered the husband to pay a cash equalization pay- ment of over $57,000. 57 The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the equalization payment rather than dividing the retirement account through 51 Meints, supra note 44. 52 Id. 53"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mony from the other, nor would they be \"eligible for alimony to be awarded in the future.\" The decree awarded Leslie \"100% of her military disability and any payment related thereto\" and stated that the parties \"shall split equally (50/50) [Leslie's] military pension.\" The decree also ordered Leslie to pay Brian \"a monthly equal- ization payment\" of $750 for a total of 59 months, under the section titled \"EQUALIZATION PAYMENT.\" Starting in July 2020, Leslie paid Brian $2,063 per month, representing 50 percent of Leslie's monthly payment received from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Brian applied to D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9cdac63f-6140-4cea-8969-34c3cbaaadac","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9449263-9449263","title":"CourtListener opinion 9449263","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 45","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 3 09:11 AM CDT - 857 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports KARAS V. KARAS Cite as 314 Neb. 857 Leslie Irene Karas, appellee, v. Brian Anthony Karas, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed August 4, 2023. No. S-22-693. 1. Divorce: Property Division: Alimony. In an action for dissolution of marriage, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) allows the district court to order payment of such alimony by one party to the other and division of property as may be reasonable. 2. Property Division: Alimony: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a district court's determinations of alimony and divis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9554593 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KARLA J. UNKE AND WESLEY B. UNKE Upon the Petition of KARLA J. UNKE. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 22-1089. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9554593 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y divide the marital portion of both 4 [parties'] pensions.\" It then decreed that Wesley's pension was to be divided under the Benson formula:1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that [Wesley]'s MFPRS account shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order wherein [Karla] is awarded one- half of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves j"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e basis for this appeal. Karla challenges the rulings denying her request for an order nunc pro tunc and dismissing her application for rule to show cause. Because Karla has not shown either an obvious error in the marital property order dividing Wesley's pension or Wesley's willful noncompliance with the child-support provisions of the decree, we affirm. We decline to award either party their appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts. Karla petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Wesley in August 2020. In April 2021, the parties stipulated to child custody, physical care, and visitation for their two child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he marital portion of both 4 [parties'] pensions.\" It then decreed that Wesley's pension was to be divided under the Benson formula:1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that [Wesley]'s MFPRS account shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order wherein [Karla] is awarded one- half of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves j"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c734867-4708-45f1-be89-a601569b46df","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554593-9554593","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554593","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-1089","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: f of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter any subsequent orders that are necessary to implement this portion of the Decree. [Karla] shall be responsible for the drafting of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and any costs administered by the plan administrator for implementing the QDRO shall be divided equally by the partie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9554626 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cassidy. Extracted reporter citation: 231 A.3d 928. Docket: 312 MDA 2022 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9554626 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ecord. See id. The master then memorialized the agreement within his report as follows: vi. The Plaintiff, Petra DiNenna, the former spouse is awarded [forty-five percent] of the service member's disposable retirement pay as of his retirement date. If a [QDRO] were necessary, it was to be prepared by pension analysis with the parties sharing the cost of preparation. The master researched the issue of the necessity of a QDRO and recommends that the Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act does not require a QDRO. Since military retirement pay is a federal entitlement and not a qualified pension plan,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: S, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: AUGUST 9, 2023 David DiNenna, Sr. (\"Husband\") appeals from the order denying (1) his petition for special relief requesting that the trial court determine the amount of his military pension to be distributed to Petra DiNenna n/k/a Petra Thomas (\"Wife\"), and (2) his exceptions filed in response to a master's report concerning the same issue. We affirm. We glean the following facts from the certified record. Husband began serving in the military in 1987. He and Wife married in 1992 and separated in 2002, and thereafter initiated divorce pr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: report is a copy of the Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and a treatise titled Dividing ____________________________________________ 1 The word \"quatro\" appears to be an erroneous transcription of the abbreviation \"QDRO,\" short for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. As we will discuss in the body of this memorandum, Husband points to this error as evidence of an ambiguity in the contract. -2- J-A13008-23 Military Retired Pay Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act and they are marked are Exhibits \"B\" and \"C\" respectively. vii. The language to be used in this Divorce Decree is recommended"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"04c437b1-0e29-4f1e-bceb-b0fd93ad761d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9554626-9554626","title":"CourtListener opinion 9554626","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"312 MDA 2022 Appellant :","extracted_reporter_citation":"231 A.3d 928","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e following facts from the certified record. Husband began serving in the military in 1987. He and Wife married in 1992 and separated in 2002, and thereafter initiated divorce proceedings. In 2005, the trial court appointed a master to address, inter alia, equitable distribution of marital property and alimony. The master held a hearing wherein the sole issue to be addressed was equitable distribution of Husband's military pension. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A13008-23 Husband and Wife reached an agreement at the hearing, and thus no testimony was t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9556229 Extracted case name: M.E.V. v. R.D.V. Extracted reporter citation: 260 A.3d 256. Docket: 3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9556229 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: prehensive agreement covered division of all the parties' assets including a payment of $100,000 from Husband to Wife and a transfer of various sums from Husband's 401(k), cash balance plan and IRA account to Wife using Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) transfers. (See id. at 3-4). The parties affirmed that this agreement resolved all outstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues; acknowledged their relinquishment of any and all claims they could have filed under the Divorce Code and waiver of their right to file exceptions; and stated their willingness to complete and sign all documents neces"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues.\" (N.T. Hearing, 10/26/21, at 2). The comprehensive agreement covered division of all the parties' assets including a payment of $100,000 from Husband to Wife and a transfer of various sums from Husband's 401(k), cash balance plan and IRA account to Wife using Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) transfers. (See id. at 3-4). The parties affirmed that this agreement resolved all outstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues; acknowledged their relinquishment of any and all claims they could have filed under the Divorce Code and waiver of their righ"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: t's signing of a QDRO in March of 2023 as evidencing that the parties' divorce action remained pending when she filed for intervention, we disagree. (See Winegrad's Brief, at 7, 11). \"A QDRO is a type of domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.\" Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). However, QDROs are merely procedural devices which are adjunct to entry of divorce decrees and implement provisions of the decrees. See id"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c63e6b0e-a7b9-4999-8334-f0ca41697a96","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9556229-9556229","title":"CourtListener opinion 9556229","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :","extracted_reporter_citation":"260 A.3d 256","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 5 Insofar as Attorney Winegrad points to the trial court's signing of a QDRO in March of 2023 as evidencing that the parties' divorce action remained pending when she filed for intervention, we disagree. (See Winegrad's Brief, at 7, 11). \"A QDRO is a type of domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.\" Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). However, QDROs are merely procedural devices which are adjunct to entry of divorce decrees a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9637458 Extracted reporter citation: 246 P.3d 958. Docket: 48705 JUDY KATSEANES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9637458 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ey (\"Judy\"), and Jeff, Jeff was required to pay Judy spousal support. Following several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: led from the bench as to the QDRO, but took the question of attorney fees under advisement. The day after the district court granted the QDRO on January 6, but before the court signed a written order on January 27, Jeff called Rudd & Company, the third-party retirement plan administrator for his 401k. Jeff told a Rudd & Company employee, Erin Dupree, that his attorney informed him things were resolved, there was no QDRO, and he could access his funds. Dupree and the company's CPA, Christian Zollinger, followed up with Oleson, on January 13, 2021, to verify that there was no QDRO. According to Dupree, Oleson told her, while usi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): owing several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the district court held Jeff in criminal contem"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c10a537d-2033-4cf8-8e51-7d5820f6929c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9637458-9637458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9637458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"48705 JUDY KATSEANES","extracted_reporter_citation":"246 P.3d 958","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ), and Jeff, Jeff was required to pay Judy spousal support. Following several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9693903 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 110 S.W.3d 336. Docket: 2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9693903 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court concluded that James could have avoided these consequences by paying the judgments within the time frames provided in the judgments. Under the specific circumstances of this case, we disagree. The trial court faulted James for his failure to submit a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO by the February 25 deadline set out in the amended judgment. Although James failed to meet this deadline, it is clear from the record that James and his counsel made a good faith effort to do so. James submitted a QDRO to Kathleen's counsel, who responded that a QDRO would not be necessary. We agree with the trial court that James's submission of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: July 16 and 21, 2021,1 and on September 8, 2021, it entered an order in which it dissolved the marriage and ruled on the pending issues. The court assigned non-marital property, and it split the marital property (including the marital residence, vehicles, retirement accounts, three bonus/profit sharing payments, and personal property) and debts. It also addressed issues as to the withdrawal of funds from bank accounts, attorney fees, and the award of maintenance (the court awarded Jennifer $1,500.00 per month for three years). Michael moved the court to make additional findings pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Proced"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: wed $52,750.00 in equity in the marital residence. As such, he shall retain all but $21,939.00 of his TESPHE account. [Jennifer] shall be entitled to that amount as her share.\" In addition, Jennifer was awarded half of the marital portion of Michael's Ford pension. On this issue, Michael argues that the total value of the vehicles he was retaining ($23,500.00) should be offset from the total value of the marital residence, rather than just half of it. The court determined that Michael was owed $52,750.00 in equity in the marital residence, calculated as follows: $76,250.00 (Michael's one-half interest in the ma"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0bbce14-4425-409e-b087-26649fb8aad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9693903-9693903","title":"CourtListener opinion 9693903","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"110 S.W.3d 336","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: luded that James could have avoided these consequences by paying the judgments within the time frames provided in the judgments. Under the specific circumstances of this case, we disagree. The trial court faulted James for his failure to submit a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO by the February 25 deadline set out in the amended judgment. Although James failed to meet this deadline, it is clear from the record that James and his counsel made a good faith effort to do so. James submitted a QDRO to Kathleen's counsel, who responded that a QDRO would not be necessary. We agree with the trial court that James's submission of th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9838569 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF PERLA OTERO. Docket: 1-21-1452 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9838569 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: , through November 12, 2021. The instant appeal was filed November 8, 2021 and was therefore timely. 9 No. 1-21-1452 ¶ 21 B. Finality ¶ 22 Luis argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, because the order being appealed is not a final order since a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is still pending in the court below, and the appeal was not filed as an interlocutory appeal. Luis also argues that the underlying order is not final, because Perla has not signed a quitclaim deed for the marital residence, as contemplated in the judgment for dissolution. However, he cites no legal precedent to support this argument, nor does"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ntil terminated by order of the court, whichever shall first occur.\" ¶5 On February 14, 2020, at the age of 57, Luis retired from his job with the Chicago Police Department and on February 25, 2020, he filed a \"Motion to Modify Maintenance and Commence Retirement Benefits.\" In the motion, Luis laid out his change in income due to his retirement, as well as his and Perla's imminent receipt of his retirement benefits. Luis continued paying maintenance until May 2020, when pension payments began, and thereafter he ceased payment without being granted leave of court to do so. ¶6 On July 2, 2020, Perla filed a petition fo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: things, that 1) Luis would pay Perla \"modifiable and terminable permanent guideline maintenance\" of $1,598 per month beginning May 1, 2019; and 2) Luis and Perla would each receive 50 percent of the payment from Luis' Policeman's Annuity & Benefit Fund Pension Plan with the City of Chicago. The MSA specified: \"The Wife's maintenance is permanent maintenance but which is otherwise modifiable as to amount but not duration, upon the filing of a Motion for Modification and upon a material and substantial change in circumstances. The maintenance is also terminable upon the first of the following termination ev"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"898ff56b-7d55-47a4-874b-6fa165bee0ae","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9838569-9838569","title":"CourtListener opinion 9838569","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-21-1452 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: h November 12, 2021. The instant appeal was filed November 8, 2021 and was therefore timely. 9 No. 1-21-1452 ¶ 21 B. Finality ¶ 22 Luis argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, because the order being appealed is not a final order since a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is still pending in the court below, and the appeal was not filed as an interlocutory appeal. Luis also argues that the underlying order is not final, because Perla has not signed a quitclaim deed for the marital residence, as contemplated in the judgment for dissolution. However, he cites no legal precedent to support this argument, nor does"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9839590 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TODD ALLEX McCREEDY AND THERESA RENE McCREEDY Upon the Petition of TODD ALLEX. Extracted reporter citation: 476 N.W.2d 324. Docket: 22-0657. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9839590 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 83,485 between his award and Theresa's. To equalize the awards, we order Todd to pay Theresa $41,742.50. Because Todd does not have this amount in liquid assets, and a cash payment may be an undue burden on him, we direct Todd to make the payment through a qualified domestic relations order from his retirement funds. See In re Marriage of Naber, No. 16-1767, 2017 WL 3283315, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017). Todd shall prepare the order and submit it to Theresa for her approval within ninety days from the date procedendo is issued. 14 D. Attorney fees Theresa requests $3500 in appellate attorney fees. Given the mixed results of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ted value of $143,000 in the marital estate. The court did not do the same for the Mainstay account, the full value of which it set aside to Theresa. As for Theresa's business, the court adopted Todd's valuation of $27,544 and awarded it to Theresa. Todd's retirement accounts were divided equally between the parties, while Theresa received the full balance of an IRA in her name. The court awarded most of the parties' vehicles and equipment to Todd, including the Sebring, valued at $3000, and its debt of $2534. He was also ordered to pay the loan on the Jeep, which was $2581, although Theresa was awarded that vehicle and or"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ween his award and Theresa's. To equalize the awards, we order Todd to pay Theresa $41,742.50. Because Todd does not have this amount in liquid assets, and a cash payment may be an undue burden on him, we direct Todd to make the payment through a qualified domestic relations order from his retirement funds. See In re Marriage of Naber, No. 16-1767, 2017 WL 3283315, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017). Todd shall prepare the order and submit it to Theresa for her approval within ninety days from the date procedendo is issued. 14 D. Attorney fees Theresa requests $3500 in appellate attorney fees. Given the mixed results of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b22152b4-597f-4518-a053-5c874ba68243","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839590-9839590","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839590","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22-0657","extracted_reporter_citation":"476 N.W.2d 324","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 006) (finding that the adjusted gross incomes from the parties' tax returns were \"of little value in calculating child support\" because of deductions, omissions of cash and barter payments, and the parties' ability to support a comfortable lifestyle). B. Property Division We start our review of the district court's property division with some familiar principles. Iowa is an equitable distribution state, meaning \"our courts equitably divide all of the property owned by the parties at the time of divorce except inherited property and gifts received by one spouse.\" In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007)"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fe03bb5-27df-4716-9088-77347ff3fd91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839649","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9839649 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9839649 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fe03bb5-27df-4716-9088-77347ff3fd91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839649","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9fe03bb5-27df-4716-9088-77347ff3fd91","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9839649-9839649","title":"CourtListener opinion 9839649","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ate laws). Although NYPL § 70.15 (1-a) creates a time-traveling legal fiction of sorts, such legal fictions are not new to this Court. See, e.g., Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding validity of nunc pro tunc Qualified Domestic Relations Orders entered after the death of the plan participant). Nor is such time-travel new for the BIA. See, e.g., Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that BIA had allowed certain lawful permanent residents to seek a specific statutory waiver nunc pro tunc for over sixty years) (citing Edwards v. I.N.S., 393 F.3d 299, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (explain"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9840173 Docket: of shares. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9840173 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: re, appeals the August 24, 2021, order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County affirming the May 4, 2021, order of the Mercer County Family Court. The family court concluded that Respondent Joy Moore is entitled to entry of a qualified domestic relation order (\"QDRO\") for one-half of David Moore's employer tax-exempt Thrift and Investment Plan (\"TIP\") as of the date of separation, plus any passive appreciation on that share. The court also concluded that laches did not bar her claim. 1 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: iscretion or error in the court's conclusion that the TIP was subject to that division in the divorce decree at the time Mr. Moore made his later two withdrawals. See id. at 618, 775 S.E.2d at 499 (stating that because party's proportional marital interest in retirement benefits had been established by the divorce decree, party could seek 3 enforcement of her right to the percentage posthumously); Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W. Va. 463, 468, 766 S.E.2d 410, 415 (2014) (reversing application of laches based on delay in preparing QDRO and finding that underlying equitable distribution obligation contained in settlement agreement was"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: find no error or abuse of discretion in allocating the appreciation of the TIP because the divorce decree established this same division of the asset. See Syl. Pt. 5, Cross v. Cross, 178 W. Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987) (discussing methods of dividing vested pension rights not yet matured in equitable distribution of marital property and stating that one method is a court order requiring that non-working spouse share in the benefits on a proportional basis when they mature). 3 Petitioner also argues that the doctrine of laches applies to this matter and should bar respondent from arguing that she did not consent to M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"499b03f6-592e-4088-b722-ca89e188550c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9840173-9840173","title":"CourtListener opinion 9840173","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"of shares","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: ings plan with Northfolk [sic] Southern Corporation which is a tax[-]exempt plan. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff Joy Hayes Moore is declared to be and is an owner of one-half of the balance of that plan and, therefore, is an alternate payee under that plan. No distribution may be made by Northfolk [sic] Southern Corporation to David Keith Moore or to Joy Hayes Moore without the joint consent of David Keith Moore and Joy Hayes Moore prior to David Keith Moore reaching the earliest retirement age under the plan. After David Keith Moore shall reach the earliest retirement age under the plan,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9881491 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heroy. Extracted reporter citation: 89 N.E.3d 296. Docket: 4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9881491 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in \"lifetime maintenance\" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It \"acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [approximately] $510 more than the statutory requirement or as the amount that would be set had the parties used the Illinois family"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 54 years old and employed by County Financial. The parties' four children were all adults. In February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in \"lifetime maintenance\" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It \"acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [approximately] $510 mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: HOUSE, ) Honorable Respondent-Appellee. ) Holly J. Henze, ) Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and Knecht concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Where respondent's retirement triggered pension distributions to petitioner, petitioner (1) has not shown the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated respondent's maintenance obligation upon his early retirement and (2) has not shown that the factual findings on which the court relied were against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 In October 2019, the trial court entered a judgme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c84ad5f4-8b68-4890-ba79-6992d0404384","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881491-9881491","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881491","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except","extracted_reporter_citation":"89 N.E.3d 296","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s then 54 years old and employed by County Financial. The parties' four children were all adults. In February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in \"lifetime maintenance\" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It \"acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [appr"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9881645 Extracted case name: WALKER v. WALKER. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9881645 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: opinion, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Stephanie Walker (\"Wife\") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Fred Walker (\"Husband\"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and states that \"no further matters remain pending.\" Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (\"Rule\") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ed Walker (\"Husband\"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and states that \"no further matters remain pending.\" Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (\"Rule\") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a result, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. At our discretion, however, we treat Wife's appeal as a special action and address Wife's claims. ¶2 On the merits, we grant relief t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ted value increase as too high and awarded Husband $35,000 for his share of the community's equitable lien. The court also found that the checks written to Wife's family totaling $47,500 constituted marital waste and awarded Husband $23,750. ¶8 As for Wife's 401(k), the parties asked for it to be divided equitably. In the decree, the court awarded each party 50% of the community portion of Wife's 401(k), to be divided via a QDRO. The decree provided that \"[t]o the extent there may be survivor benefits associated with any of the retirement accounts, the QDRO drafter shall be appointed as a Rule 72 Special Master to mak"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba58580e-e5b1-4c67-a6cf-645c8e7f10a9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9881645-9881645","title":"CourtListener opinion 9881645","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Stephanie Walker (\"Wife\") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Fred Walker (\"Husband\"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and states that \"no further matters remain pending.\" Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (\"Rule\") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dc09207-311b-4dde-adfb-a4ef3379d137","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882431","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29763 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9882431 Extracted case name: M.A.M. v. A.P.H. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 29763 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9882431 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dc09207-311b-4dde-adfb-a4ef3379d137","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882431","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29763 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0dc09207-311b-4dde-adfb-a4ef3379d137","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882431-9882431","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882431","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"29763 Appellee : : Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ays, not her failure to prosecute. Mother asserted that there were no provisions in the ex parte protection order granting custody or suspending parenting time, denied forum shopping, and argued that McCue was distinguishable. She also pointed out that the domestic relations order was an ex parte order, not a final order, and argued that the children were entitled to a full hearing on whether they were in danger of domestic violence by Father, which was within the jurisdiction of the domestic relations court. {¶ 8} On August 5, 2022, the domestic relations court denied the motion to dismiss. The court noted that, since the fili"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9882876 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9882876 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: jection to the trial court's award of the spousal support overpayment to Ms. Dilley (due to his own actions throughout the term of his spousal support obligation), nor did he appeal the trial court's judgment. In addition, Mr. Dilley cannot attack previous QDRO orders since they are issues which have been previously raised and decided. See e.g., Dilley, 2017-Ohio-8439, at ¶ 20 (attempting to raise spousal support issues previously decided); Dilley, 2015-Ohio- 1872, at ¶ 12 (raising issues already decided that were either not appealed or affirmed on appeal); Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶ 11 (finding Mr. Dilley's"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Dilley filed for divorce, and the trial court entered a final decree of divorce on March 10, 2010. At the time of divorce, Mr. Dilley was 65 years of 2 Case No. 2023-G-0008 age. Pursuant to the divorce decree, each party was awarded 50% of Mr. Dilley's retirement benefits (the parties' only significant assets), which included: (1) a Shearson Pension already in pay status (defined benefit plan); a Citigroup 401(k) (defined contribution plan); (3) a stock option plan; and (4) a Citi Cash Balance Plan already in pay status (defined contribution plan). Mr. Dilley was also ordered to pay Ms. Dilley $2,000 in monthly spousal"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that found, pursuant to its November 18, 2022 judgment entry, he fulfilled his spousal support obligations and ordered the termination of the withholding/garnishment orders of his Social Security benefits and his pension and cash plans. The court issued amended Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\"QDROs\") to Mr. Dilley's pension and cash plans upon the request from the plans' administrator for additional language to terminate the spousal support. {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises two assignments of error on appeal, contending the trial court committed prejudicial error (1) by app"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a519c43f-3b25-4ec4-990a-989911eb6627","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9882876-9882876","title":"CourtListener opinion 9882876","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"450 N.E.2d 1140","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ase No. 2023-G-0008 age. Pursuant to the divorce decree, each party was awarded 50% of Mr. Dilley's retirement benefits (the parties' only significant assets), which included: (1) a Shearson Pension already in pay status (defined benefit plan); a Citigroup 401(k) (defined contribution plan); (3) a stock option plan; and (4) a Citi Cash Balance Plan already in pay status (defined contribution plan). Mr. Dilley was also ordered to pay Ms. Dilley $2,000 in monthly spousal support through the Geauga County Child Support Enforcement Agency (\"CSEA\"), for a period of eight years and eight months. {¶7} In July 2012, f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9889252 Extracted case name: F.D.I.C. v. F & A. Extracted reporter citation: 660 S.W.3d 98. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9889252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: \"as reflected on Exhibit A,\" except for the portion \"awarded to [Diane] in this decree.\" Exhibit A is the same spreadsheet that was attached to the MSA. The decree also awards Diane an equalization judgment of $153,541.75. 2 The trial court later signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in which it ordered the division of Bobby's UPS 401(k) account. The language in the QDRO is not consistent with the language in the decree. Where the decree awards Diane 50% of the account's \"community interest\" that accrued during the marriage, the QDRO awards her 50% of Bobby's \"total vested account balance [that] accrued\" during that same period."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: is a species of post-divorce enforcement order. Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). It creates or recognizes an alternative right for the payee to receive benefits that are payable to a participant under a retirement plan. In re Marriage of Denning and Stokes, 651 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). As with any post- divorce enforcement or clarification order, a QDRO may not amend, alter, or change the division of property that is made or approved in the decree of divorce. Id. (citing Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): award of attorney's fees. We affirm the trial court's clarification order, and we reverse and remand its attorney's fees determination for further consideration. I. Factual Background Prior to the parties' marriage on September 30, 2011, Bobby maintained a 401(k) account with his employer, United Parcel Service, which had a balance of $244,277.92. During their marriage, the parties largely stopped contributing to the 401(k) account—they contributed a total of only $33,000. Before their divorce was granted, the parties mediated their marital disputes, and they executed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f9b843b7-3b47-4f98-aed0-3eb11c2d46d1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9889252-9889252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9889252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"660 S.W.3d 98","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: cted on Exhibit A,\" except for the portion \"awarded to [Diane] in this decree.\" Exhibit A is the same spreadsheet that was attached to the MSA. The decree also awards Diane an equalization judgment of $153,541.75. 2 The trial court later signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in which it ordered the division of Bobby's UPS 401(k) account. The language in the QDRO is not consistent with the language in the decree. Where the decree awards Diane 50% of the account's \"community interest\" that accrued during the marriage, the QDRO awards her 50% of Bobby's \"total vested account balance [that] accrued\" during that same period."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5af99612-2126-4201-8027-c398bf0eda99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515","title":"CourtListener opinion 9890515","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 S.W.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9890515 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JENNIFER R. DUSING. Extracted reporter citation: 617 S.W.2d 871. Docket: 2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9890515 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5af99612-2126-4201-8027-c398bf0eda99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515","title":"CourtListener opinion 9890515","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 S.W.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5af99612-2126-4201-8027-c398bf0eda99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515","title":"CourtListener opinion 9890515","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 S.W.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and Conclusions of Law and Order (\"2021 Distribution\") to address numerous pending motions; only a few matters discussed in those motions are relevant here. First, the parties could not agree on the verbiage and dates for use in a retirement -4- account Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The family court addressed the QDRO in part and reserved in part, ordering the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining QDRO issues through counsel or mediation, if necessary. Second, the family court noted an error made in the 2020 Distribution. The family court admitted that it \"neglected, by mistake, to address a credit to [Michael] for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5af99612-2126-4201-8027-c398bf0eda99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515","title":"CourtListener opinion 9890515","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 S.W.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: usions of Law and Order (\"2021 Distribution\") to address numerous pending motions; only a few matters discussed in those motions are relevant here. First, the parties could not agree on the verbiage and dates for use in a retirement -4- account Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). The family court addressed the QDRO in part and reserved in part, ordering the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining QDRO issues through counsel or mediation, if necessary. Second, the family court noted an error made in the 2020 Distribution. The family court admitted that it \"neglected, by mistake, to address a credit to [Michael] for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5af99612-2126-4201-8027-c398bf0eda99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9890515-9890515","title":"CourtListener opinion 9890515","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"617 S.W.2d 871","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ber 1, 2022, Michael again filed a notice of appeal to this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Michael appeals both the 2020 Distribution and the 2021 Distribution, challenging a finding of fact – the value of marital residence – and conclusions of law – the equitable distribution of marital residence sale proceeds. The 2021 -7- Distribution addressed open matters in the dissolution litigation, but also acted as a denial of Michael's CR 60.021 motion. Findings of fact are reviewed pursuant to CR 52.01 which provides that \"[f]indings of fact, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous[.]\" A finding of fact is not clearly"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9892079 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAUL K. WINCHESTER. Extracted reporter citation: 295 S.W.3d 850. Docket: 2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9892079 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pellee Brenda Logan (\"Brenda\") were married in 1988, and on October 26, 2000, the Whitley Circuit Court entered the Decree of Dissolution ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relation Order] would be entered awarding Brenda one-half (1/2) of the value of all of Michael's pensions, retirement plans or thrift plans with FCI [Federal Correctional Institution] valued as of the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution herein. In 2001, pursuant to the Decree of Dissolution, Brenda tendered two Court Order"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: tion ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relation Order] would be entered awarding Brenda one-half (1/2) of the value of all of Michael's pensions, retirement plans or thrift plans with FCI [Federal Correctional Institution] valued as of the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution herein. In 2001, pursuant to the Decree of Dissolution, Brenda tendered two Court Orders Acceptable for Processing (\"COAP\")1 that were subsequently entered by the court on November 13, 2001: the \"2001 Pension COAP\" and the \"2001 TS"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: HIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES. CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Michael Dwayne Gregory (\"Michael\") appeals the Whitley Circuit Court orders denying his motions to amend post-dissolution orders modifying the portion of a divorce decree that distributed his pension. Finding no error or abuse, we affirm. I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND Michael and Appellee Brenda Logan (\"Brenda\") were married in 1988, and on October 26, 2000, the Whitley Circuit Court entered the Decree of Dissolution ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified D"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"07a083d3-9609-4f7b-8cd6-8bc463c5273e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892079-9892079","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892079","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 S.W.3d 850","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ly entered by the court on November 13, 2001: the \"2001 Pension COAP\" and the \"2001 TSP COAP.\" The TSP is not in dispute; Michael's Federal Employees Retirement System (\"FERS\") pension2 is the source of this appeal. The 2001 Pension COAP awarded Brenda a surviving spouse annuity and stated, \"This Order assigns to [Brenda] Fifty Percent (50%) of [Michael's] 1 Although the Decree of Dissolution refers to a QDRO, the orders in question are actually titled COAPs, but here, for our purposes, the title discrepancy is a difference without a distinction. 2 A pension is a defined-benefit plan \"in which an employer commits to pay"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56389c41-6e77-4e88-9095-2a52159e1675","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0505 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9892101 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Frisz. Docket: 1-23-0505 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9892101 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56389c41-6e77-4e88-9095-2a52159e1675","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0505 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56389c41-6e77-4e88-9095-2a52159e1675","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0505 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: I. ¶3 In this current appeal, as he did in Frisz I, Keith contends that, when the circuit court determined that his thrift savings plan administrator did not overpay Marilyn, it erroneously interpreted the parties' marital settlement agreement and its own qualified domestic relations order contrary to the plain language of both and the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2020)). However, we again lack jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal and for the reasons that follow, we dismiss it. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 We will repeat from our prior order in Frisz I the facts necessary for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56389c41-6e77-4e88-9095-2a52159e1675","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0505 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: age of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 220530-U. ¶6 In April 2020, the circuit court entered a judgment for a dissolution of marriage that incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement, which set forth how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Thereafter, in July 2020, the circuit court entered an agreed qualified domestic relations order to implement the parties' agreement on the thrift savings plan account. On January 26, 2021, according to a correspondence from Keith's plan administrator, $192,873.65 was transferred from Keith's thrift savings plan to Marilyn. -2-"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"56389c41-6e77-4e88-9095-2a52159e1675","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9892101-9892101","title":"CourtListener opinion 9892101","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0505 Order","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: this current appeal, as he did in Frisz I, Keith contends that, when the circuit court determined that his thrift savings plan administrator did not overpay Marilyn, it erroneously interpreted the parties' marital settlement agreement and its own qualified domestic relations order contrary to the plain language of both and the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2020)). However, we again lack jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal and for the reasons that follow, we dismiss it. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 We will repeat from our prior order in Frisz I the facts necessary for"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9894541 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9894541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t of this appeal, and it stated as follows: [Mr. Moore] is currently drawing an annuity from FERS. Any portion of [Mr. Moore's] FERS that is for a disability of [Mr. Moore] is the separate property of [Mr. Moore]. [Ms. Moore] shall be entitled to submit a QDRO or a COAP to the Office of Personnel Management to divide any portion of [Mr. Moore's] FERS that is not related to a disability of [Mr. Moore], but rather is a retirement plan. [Mr. Moore] shall be required to advise [Ms. Moore] if and when his FERS becomes a retirement plan. The family court incorporated the parties' Agreement into a decree of separa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 97 through October 2004, for a total of seven years and two months. Due to a work-related back injury, Mr. Moore's employment ended, and he was awarded monthly disability benefits, payable by the Office of Personnel Management. His disability benefits are not retirement benefits; however, when he reaches retirement age, the disability benefits could convert to retirement benefits. During his employment with the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Moore paid to have his time from the military credited toward his time with the U. S. Postal Service to increase his pay and benefits. After paying for his credit, Mr. Moore's total years of service"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: OPM\"), not FUSFSPA. Additionally, in the present 2 In Smith, 190 W. Va. at 402, 438 S.E.2d at 582, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the ex-spouse was entitled to be designated as the survivorship beneficiary for her spouse's military pension, which was administered through the Federal Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (\"FUSFSPA\"), 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1983). 3 case, Mr. Moore is currently ineligible for a survivorship annuity because he has not completed ten years of creditable civil service, as required by the OPM.3 Ms. Moore is requesting a benefit that is yet to exist and may ne"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b7b168b7-6853-47f9-9158-0c5d28890796","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9894541-9894541","title":"CourtListener opinion 9894541","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","military_retirement","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: in the draft COAP as being inconsistent with the parties' Agreement and paid to have his own draft COAP prepared. Specifically, Mr. Moore objected to section five, paragraph one, which stated, \"The Former Spouse is also found to be entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity should the Employee predecease the Former Spouse.\" He further objected to wording contained in section six, paragraph three which made reference to a survivorship annuity. Mr. Moore also objected to section seven of Ms. Moore's draft COAP which stated, \"The Former Spouse shall begin receiving her share of the Employee Annuity benefits as soon as administra"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9897426 Extracted case name: R.W. v. M.D. Extracted reporter citation: 44 N.E.3d 721. Docket: 22A-DN-1202 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9897426 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: estate at $1,257,934.96 and divided it equally between the parties. [4] Husband is employed by the Morgan County Sheriff's Department and the trial court valued his present interest in his pension at $1,101,110.82. Husband's pension is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").1 Accordingly, the court awarded the pension to Husband and ordered him to pay to Wife an equalization payment in the amount of $475,043.29. 1 Under federal law, government pensions are not subject to a QDRO. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 2 of 8 [5] Husband does not have liquid assets sufficient to pay Wife the equalization payment, and he testified that it was \"possible\" that he would ignore a court order that he pay Wife one-half of his future retirement benefits to satisfy the equalization payment. Tr. p. 76. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Husband pay Wife, over time, as follows: 15. Should Husband die prior to receiving any of his pension, Wife would have no way to obtain a significant portion of her share of the marital property or estate. In order to provide some assurance the Wife will rece"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: a life insurance policy as security for his equalization payment, to be made in installments, to Wife. II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did not consider the potential tax consequences to him of giving Wife one-half of his future pension distributions. [2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Facts and Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife married in November 1995 and have no children together. They separated in August 2021, and Wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Following the final hearing, the trial court issued its decree of dis"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af9856eb-784f-4c0f-a749-734a2554788e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9897426-9897426","title":"CourtListener opinion 9897426","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22A-DN-1202 v","extracted_reporter_citation":"44 N.E.3d 721","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: $1,257,934.96 and divided it equally between the parties. [4] Husband is employed by the Morgan County Sheriff's Department and the trial court valued his present interest in his pension at $1,101,110.82. Husband's pension is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").1 Accordingly, the court awarded the pension to Husband and ordered him to pay to Wife an equalization payment in the amount of $475,043.29. 1 Under federal law, government pensions are not subject to a QDRO. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9898149 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bulicek. Extracted reporter citation: 800 P.2d 394. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898149 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: EALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 83845-8-I LAURIE JEAN GUDNASON DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and HELGI GUDNASON, Respondent. BIRK, J. — Laurie Gudnason appeals a superior court order vacating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which had divided her former spouse Helgi Gudnason's pension benefits in their dissolution. The superior court ruled the QDRO did not reflect the intent of the parties' separation contract and decree of dissolution, vacated it, and entered a new QDRO carrying out the parties' original intent. We affirm. I On February 15, 2007, Laurie1 petitio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eparate property, free from any right, claim, title or interest\" of the other. The parties warranted to each other neither had \"any right, title or interest in any property of any kind or description whatsoever, other than as set forth herein.\" Specific to retirement benefits, the contract provided, \"Both parties warrant that they have no vested or non-vested interest in any pension plan, retirement plan, profit-sharing plan or any other employee benefit other than those benefits as set forth herein.\" (Emphasis added.) The contract allocated to Helgi \"[a]ll retirement rights\" accrued to him through employment including hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UDNASON DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and HELGI GUDNASON, Respondent. BIRK, J. — Laurie Gudnason appeals a superior court order vacating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which had divided her former spouse Helgi Gudnason's pension benefits in their dissolution. The superior court ruled the QDRO did not reflect the intent of the parties' separation contract and decree of dissolution, vacated it, and entered a new QDRO carrying out the parties' original intent. We affirm. I On February 15, 2007, Laurie1 petitioned for dissolution of her marriage with Helgi. They had been marrie"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f3e05ab8-3f7a-403b-b314-3ad3ede30f08","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898149-9898149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"800 P.2d 394","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: locating a portion of Helgi's retirement benefits to Laurie concludes, \"To be divided by QDRO to be drafted by husband's attorney no later than 30 days after entry of the Decree.\" In the terminology of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829, a \"domestic relations order\" is \"any judgment, decree, or order that concerns ‘the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant' and is ‘made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a community property law"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9898529 Extracted case name: In re Matter of Estate of Hein. Extracted reporter citation: 485 P.3d 953. Docket: 57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898529 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: other filings in the case until March 2016, when Sarah once again petitioned to reopen the estate. In this petition, Sarah claimed that in response to her motion for contempt, Prudential's position was that it would only make payments to Sarah following a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) requiring it to do so. She submitted a declaration from \"a QDRO expert,\" Id. at 30, who stated that the 2011 stipulation and order had no effect on benefits payable under the annuity, that a QDRO would similarly not allow Sarah to collect any benefits under the annuity, and that the annuity was never an asset of the estate. Because the parties' s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ieu of her life estate in the home. In June 2011, Sarah came to an agreement with the Estate, and the parties filed a stipulation and order. The stipulation provided that Gordon held a life insurance policy with Prudential Financial from which he received retirement benefits during his lifetime. Victoria Ochs, Gordon's ex-wife, was the named beneficiary under the plan. It was the parties' understanding that this designation was automatically revoked pursuant to state statute when Gordon and Victoria divorced in 2002. Accordingly, the stipulation claimed, \"The Annuity is an asset of the Decedent's estate.\" Clerk's Papers (C"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ings in the case until March 2016, when Sarah once again petitioned to reopen the estate. In this petition, Sarah claimed that in response to her motion for contempt, Prudential's position was that it would only make payments to Sarah following a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) requiring it to do so. She submitted a declaration from \"a QDRO expert,\" Id. at 30, who stated that the 2011 stipulation and order had no effect on benefits payable under the annuity, that a QDRO would similarly not allow Sarah to collect any benefits under the annuity, and that the annuity was never an asset of the estate. Because the parties' s"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1437a3d-cf34-4c65-9ac1-7963559e7ed8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898529-9898529","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898529","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings","extracted_reporter_citation":"485 P.3d 953","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: mount to be determined by the court commissioner. FACTS Gordon passed away in July 2009, and probate proceedings were initiated about two months after his death. Gordon's will left his residence to his daughter but provided a life estate for Sarah, his surviving spouse. Sarah first filed a petition for a family support award in May 2010. Her petition alleged that she was informed that she could only reside at the home if she made payments toward its taxes, mortgage, maintenance, and future repairs, which she did not believe she could afford. As a result, she began living in a one-bedroom apartment rather than continu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9898829 Extracted reporter citation: 640 S.W.3d 408. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898829 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ourt to rule on this motion that resulted in the dismissal of the prior appeal for lack of a final order. Sanchez v. Weeks, 2021 Ark. App. 493. On remand, the court dismissed the motion as moot. 3 that the court reopen their divorce case for the entry of a QDRO dividing the account equally between them. The court in the newly reopened 2006 divorce action granted the request and issued a QDRO dividing the 401(k) equally between Gotopo and Sanchez as of February 14, 2020—over four years into Sanchez and Weeks's marriage. After the QDRO was entered by the court in the prior divorce case, Sanchez amended his com"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t Sanchez filed for divorce two weeks later. As for the 401(k), the evidence was slightly more complicated. Sanchez began working for Wal-Mart in 1996, prior to his marriage to Weeks. While he was employed by Wal-Mart, Sanchez contributed to his company's retirement plan and took advantage of its contribution matching program. At the time he began contributing to the plan, he was married to his first wife, Glexy Sanchez, now Gotopo. They divorced in 2006 after twenty years of marriage. Their divorce decree did not address the division of the 401(k) plan. Sanchez continued to contribute to the 401(k) even after he marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): vorcing him from the appellee, Glenn E. Weeks. On appeal, Sanchez argues that the circuit court erred in its division of the marital assets and debts, including its decision declaring the parties' home to be marital property and its allocation of Sanchez's 401(k) plan among Sanchez, Sanchez's ex-wife, and Weeks. Because the court erred in designating the parties' home as marital property and because it erred in its allocation of the 401(k), we reverse the court's division of marital property. Finally, we affirm the circuit court's allocation of marital debt. William Sanchez and Glenn Weeks were married on Nove"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c96042-7bb2-43e4-8b2c-ebf3072d317b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9898829-9898829","title":"CourtListener opinion 9898829","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"640 S.W.3d 408","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Furthermore, a circuit court has broad powers to distribute property in a divorce to achieve equitable distribution; mathematical precision is not required. Id. In reviewing a circuit court's findings, we defer to the court's superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Id. I. Real Property 5 Sanchez first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the parties' home was a marital asset. We a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22b8e7f3-c4c8-49bf-a782-a77b28b6287a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831","title":"CourtListener opinion 9900831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and that we would treat","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9900831 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: and that we would treat. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9900831 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22b8e7f3-c4c8-49bf-a782-a77b28b6287a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831","title":"CourtListener opinion 9900831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and that we would treat","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22b8e7f3-c4c8-49bf-a782-a77b28b6287a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831","title":"CourtListener opinion 9900831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and that we would treat","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: RS disability benefit. The parties having briefed their respective positions, the POs are ripe for our disposition. I. KE'S PETITION Ke filed the Petition in our original jurisdiction on April 13, 2022, alleging as follows.2 Ke applied to SERS for disability retirement benefits in December 2007, 1 Darigo is identified as in-house counsel for SERS. (Petition for Review (Petition) ¶¶ 1, 9.) 2 \"In ruling on preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the [P]etition . . . and any reasonable inferences that we may draw from the (Footnote continued on next page…) which SERS temporarily appro"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22b8e7f3-c4c8-49bf-a782-a77b28b6287a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9900831-9900831","title":"CourtListener opinion 9900831","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"and that we would treat","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nia State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) and Salvatore Darigo, in his official capacity (Darigo)1 (collectively, Respondents), to the Petition for Review (Petition) filed by Zhaojin David Ke (Ke) in our original jurisdiction challenging the validity of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) affecting Ke's SERS disability benefit. The parties having briefed their respective positions, the POs are ripe for our disposition. I. KE'S PETITION Ke filed the Petition in our original jurisdiction on April 13, 2022, alleging as follows.2 Ke applied to SERS for disability retirement benefits in December 2007, 1 Darigo is identified as in-house"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88d3b17b-2c96-4c6e-97f6-ec26bc6ca9e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551","title":"CourtListener opinion 9901551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"427 P.3d 77","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9901551 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kesler. Extracted reporter citation: 427 P.3d 77. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9901551 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88d3b17b-2c96-4c6e-97f6-ec26bc6ca9e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551","title":"CourtListener opinion 9901551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"427 P.3d 77","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88d3b17b-2c96-4c6e-97f6-ec26bc6ca9e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551","title":"CourtListener opinion 9901551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"427 P.3d 77","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 20, 2018, and instead valued the parties' assets at the time of dissolution. John requests we \"vacate the MPSA rulings and 7 order the MPSA 30% DRIP transfer recognizes and includes the earlier $100,000+ PMPSA transfer and order the effective date of the QDRO transfer to be December 20, 2018.\" ¶12 Tracy asserts the District Court properly recognized the purpose of the PMPSA was to provide for Tracy's interim and immediate needs and the purpose of the MPSA was to distribute the remaining assets in a just settlement. She asserts the District Court was correct that these two distributions were meant to be read"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88d3b17b-2c96-4c6e-97f6-ec26bc6ca9e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551","title":"CourtListener opinion 9901551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"427 P.3d 77","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): nder the MPSA noting John had not made various distributions required of the PMPSA and had not provided Tracy with a deed to the marital home. Additionally, the court recognized that a QDRO would be needed to transfer ownership of Tracy's portion of John's 401K. John argued the valuation date for the QDRO retirement assets should be the effective date of the MPSA. The District Court determined the valuation date for the QDRO to be November 28, 2022, the date of dissolution. John contends this was reversible error. Tracy asserts that given that none of the obligations imposed by the MPSA were performed on the e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"88d3b17b-2c96-4c6e-97f6-ec26bc6ca9e6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9901551-9901551","title":"CourtListener opinion 9901551","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"427 P.3d 77","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: llowing the MPSA, the District Court merely noted the express intention of the MPSA—\"to accomplish a just settlement of their respective property rights\"—was consistent with the equitable considerations of § 40-4-202, MCA, and the court would not adopt the property division the MPSA contemplates if it is not an equitable apportionment of the marital estate. The District Court's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the MPSA, its expressed intention to accomplish a just settlement, and with the other provisions of the agreement. ¶14 Tracy asserts that John's appeal indicates the parties did not have a meet"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9903699 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9903699 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ition, \"plus any gains or losses on that amount.\" A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce the final judgment and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we reverse. The salient facts of the case are undisputed. The value of Former Husband's interest in the retirement plan at the time of the marriage was $17,485, which Former Wife concedes is Former Husband's separate nonmarital property. The value of the plan when the dissolution of marriage litigation commenced w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pouses whose marriage was dissolved by a consent final judgment setting forth their settlement agreement.1 Pertinent here is the contractual provision approved in the judgment requiring the parties to equally divide the marital portion of Former Husband's retirement plan, which they defined as that portion of the plan acquired from the time of the marriage to the filing of the dissolution of marriage petition, \"plus any gains or losses on that amount.\" A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ive. In Hargrave, the parties entered into a 3 property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Id. at 366. The agreement provided that the wife would receive one-half of the portion of the husband's pension plan that \"accru[ed] during the marriage and income thereon.\" Id. Much like the present case, a postjudgment dispute arose between the parties regarding the interpretation of this contractual provision. Id. In Hargrave, and as also occurred here, the wife successfully petitioned the trial court to enter a QDRO that awarded her one-half of the entire ba"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0926fa39-fd1c-46b8-8b28-2f6d4e865150","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9903699-9903699","title":"CourtListener opinion 9903699","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: us any gains or losses on that amount.\" A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce the final judgment and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). For the following reasons, we reverse. The salient facts of the case are undisputed. The value of Former Husband's interest in the retirement plan at the time of the marriage was $17,485, which Former Wife concedes is Former Husband's separate nonmarital property. The value of the plan when the dissolution of marriage litigation commenced w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9904422 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9904422 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two years later, Former Husband moved for entry of two QDROs for the GE Savings Plan and the Lockheed Savings Plan. After holding a hearing where only these two QDROs were discussed, the lower court entered a QDRO for the GE Savings Plan and a QDRO for the Lockheed Savings Plan. Despite the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Employee Retirement Program (\"Lockheed Retirement Program\") not being addressed in Former Husband's motion nor discussed during the hearing, the trial court also 2 entered a QDRO for the Lockheed Retirement Program. Additionally, the tria"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court equitably distributed the marital assets, including \"retirement assets (401k) valued at in excess of $625,000.00 as well as pension benefits\" and specifically distributed two retirement plans titled \"Lockheed Martin Salaried Savings\" (\"Lockheed Savings Plan\") and the \"GE Retirement Savings\" (\"GE Savings Plan\"). All of these accounts were generated by Former Husband's employment while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two years later, Former Husband moved for entry of two QDROs for the GE Savings Plan and the Lockheed Savings Plan. Af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Appellant, John Travis (\"Former Husband\"), appeals the order denying his motion for rehearing and reconsideration regarding several Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) rendered by the trial court regarding the distribution of certain retirement or pension funds and the three QDROs issued after he filed his first notice of appeal. We affirm in part but vacate the February 2021 QDROs and remand for further proceedings. After over thirty years of marriage to Former Husband, Appellee, Deborah Travis (\"Former Wife\"), filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c5946d8-8a1d-45ad-a36c-c74e8d2943c1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9904422-9904422","title":"CourtListener opinion 9904422","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): of marriage to Former Husband, Appellee, Deborah Travis (\"Former Wife\"), filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court equitably distributed the marital assets, including \"retirement assets (401k) valued at in excess of $625,000.00 as well as pension benefits\" and specifically distributed two retirement plans titled \"Lockheed Martin Salaried Savings\" (\"Lockheed Savings Plan\") and the \"GE Retirement Savings\" (\"GE Savings Plan\"). All of these accounts were generated by Former Husband's employment while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19eca145-5195-4803-8a5f-1360de2d6e75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9905550 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 206 WDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905550 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19eca145-5195-4803-8a5f-1360de2d6e75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19eca145-5195-4803-8a5f-1360de2d6e75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ___________________ 1 Paragraph 2 of the Final Order directed that, among other things, Husband pay $196,925 \"plus the sum of the applicable rate of return that was earned on the sum . . . from March 7, 2011 through the date of the issuance of an applicable Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)\" to Wife within thirty days of the issuance of the QDRO. Final Order, 6/28/13, ¶ 2. -3- J-A22001-23 shall remain responsible for payment of existing mortgage on [the marital residence] until a transfer of ownership occurs. Final Order, 6/28/13, at ¶ 10. As such, the Final Order contemplated that in the event Wife elected to purchase the house"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19eca145-5195-4803-8a5f-1360de2d6e75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: _________ 1 Paragraph 2 of the Final Order directed that, among other things, Husband pay $196,925 \"plus the sum of the applicable rate of return that was earned on the sum . . . from March 7, 2011 through the date of the issuance of an applicable Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)\" to Wife within thirty days of the issuance of the QDRO. Final Order, 6/28/13, ¶ 2. -3- J-A22001-23 shall remain responsible for payment of existing mortgage on [the marital residence] until a transfer of ownership occurs. Final Order, 6/28/13, at ¶ 10. As such, the Final Order contemplated that in the event Wife elected to purchase the house"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19eca145-5195-4803-8a5f-1360de2d6e75","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905550-9905550","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905550","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"206 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"935 A.2d 547","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: n the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD 91-003774-002 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: November 22, 2023 Roscoe Bright (\"Husband\") appeals the order granting a motion to enforce equitable distribution filed by Wendy Bright (\"Wife\"). We affirm. This matter concerns Husband's compliance with an equitable distribution order. Husband and Wife were married in 1992. Before and during the marriage, Husband bought educational savings bonds from his employer. In 1995, he purchased the marital residence in Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, which was mortgaged and tit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"366e0a3d-a16e-4d5f-ae69-2b958f5761f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905557","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9905557 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905557 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"366e0a3d-a16e-4d5f-ae69-2b958f5761f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905557","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"366e0a3d-a16e-4d5f-ae69-2b958f5761f1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905557-9905557","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905557","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: materials electronically filed in the underlying cases. See Atwood v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood), 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Cir. BAP 2003). 3 Carey filed a proof of claim in the amount of $15,629.35 (State Court Judgment plus interest) for \"Domestic Relations Orders.\" In section 5 of the proof of claim, Carey indicated that $629.35 was a domestic support obligation (\"DSO\") entitled to priority pursuant to § 507(a)(1)(A). Rita objected to the proof of claim, stating that she was appealing the $15,000 judgment and the $629.35 was for medical bills, not a DSO. The bankruptcy court granted Rita's objection in part b"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9905763 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BULSON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905763 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: CONDUCT {¶ 7} Bulson represented Amy Shepherd1 in a Madison County domestic- relations case. On January 8, 2013, the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO would be fi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: August. In his October 2021 written response, Bulson acknowledged his delay in preparing the QDRO, described his recent but unsuccessful efforts to recover computer files regarding the matter, and stated that \"the next step is to submit the draft QDRO to the pension administrator for pre-approval.\" He stated that he expected the approval process to \"take up to thirty days\" and that once he received it, he would send the original QDRO to opposing counsel for the required signatures and then file the document with the court. But at the time Bulson offered that explanation to relator, he had not yet submitted the QDRO to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO would be finalized within 30 days. After making that commitment, Bulson did not accept or return Shepherd's phone calls. {¶ 9} S"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"020676d2-ca5e-4894-bf20-283922d03233","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9905763-9905763","title":"CourtListener opinion 9905763","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: recommended sanction. MISCONDUCT {¶ 7} Bulson represented Amy Shepherd1 in a Madison County domestic- relations case. On January 8, 2013, the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO woul"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac912623-dc4c-4a42-a398-5a83f6089adf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793","title":"CourtListener opinion 9910793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22AP0020 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9910793 Extracted case name: I.R. v. D.R. Docket: 22AP0020 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9910793 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac912623-dc4c-4a42-a398-5a83f6089adf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793","title":"CourtListener opinion 9910793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22AP0020 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac912623-dc4c-4a42-a398-5a83f6089adf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793","title":"CourtListener opinion 9910793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22AP0020 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: asserting that 10 Wife did not object to their admissibility. He, therefore, has not established that the court was required to admit them. {¶26} Regarding contempt, Husband alleges that the trial court made him bear the costs associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's \"persistent recalcitrance\" in failing to provide information about all the acco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac912623-dc4c-4a42-a398-5a83f6089adf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793","title":"CourtListener opinion 9910793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22AP0020 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's \"persistent recalcitrance\" in failing to provide information about all the accounts, however, it could not do so and had to order them to be divided equally. Section 3105.171(E)(5) provides that, \"[i]If a spouse has substantially and willfully failed to disclose marital property, separate prop"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ac912623-dc4c-4a42-a398-5a83f6089adf","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9910793-9910793","title":"CourtListener opinion 9910793","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"22AP0020 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: that 10 Wife did not object to their admissibility. He, therefore, has not established that the court was required to admit them. {¶26} Regarding contempt, Husband alleges that the trial court made him bear the costs associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's \"persistent recalcitrance\" in failing to provide information about all the acco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9912164 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Litzky. Extracted reporter citation: 335 N.E.2d 708. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9912164 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: trial court erred when it adopted Wife's proposed judgment entry because it did not mirror the language used in the magistrate's recommended decision. Specifically, Husband objects that the judgment entry included language that Husband should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") within 30 days of journalization of the divorce decree, even though such language was not included in the magistrate's decision. He also objects that Wife's proposed entry included language that the issue of temporary support would remain pending and not merge into the divorce decree and that except for Wife's motion to show cause and motion f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): y division, payable by Husband in $5,000 monthly installments until fully paid. The court ordered that Husband was responsible for all debt incurred by the parties until July 1, 2020, when the temporary support order took effect. The court awarded Wife her 401(k) account that had a balance of $1,200, and further awarded Wife $54,670.50 from Husband's 401(k). The court awarded each party the vehicle he or she was driving at the time of trial and ordered that the parties were to divide by lot the items listed on Wife's personal property list. Husband now appeals. II. Law and Analysis A. Validity of the Marriage"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt erred when it adopted Wife's proposed judgment entry because it did not mirror the language used in the magistrate's recommended decision. Specifically, Husband objects that the judgment entry included language that Husband should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") within 30 days of journalization of the divorce decree, even though such language was not included in the magistrate's decision. He also objects that Wife's proposed entry included language that the issue of temporary support would remain pending and not merge into the divorce decree and that except for Wife's motion to show cause and motion f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c0dd5ac1-4e51-4463-a33b-65f362fc69da","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9912164-9912164","title":"CourtListener opinion 9912164","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"335 N.E.2d 708","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: on. The trial court issued a judgment entry granting the parties a divorce, ordering that Husband be granted his separate property consisting of SAM Corp., and the Tungsten Road, Countryside Road, and Slate Court properties, and awarding Wife $132,000 in property division, payable by Husband in $5,000 monthly installments until fully paid. The court ordered that Husband was responsible for all debt incurred by the parties until July 1, 2020, when the temporary support order took effect. The court awarded Wife her 401(k) account that had a balance of $1,200, and further awarded Wife $54,670.50 from Husband's 401(k). The"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9914192 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Goldsmith. Docket: 1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9914192 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ettled their divorce and, in doing so, agreed that Amanda would receive 100% of Michael's employee retirement fund, operated by Fidelity, the present value of which they estimated at roughly $300,000. They entered into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to \"cash out\" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was cl"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: employee retirement fund, operated by Fidelity, the present value of which they estimated at roughly $300,000. They entered into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to \"cash out\" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was closer to $440,000. ¶3 When he learned of this cash-out value, Michael sought a reformation of the marita"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to \"cash out\" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was closer to $440,000. ¶3 When he learned of this cash-out value, Michael sought a reformation of the marital settlement agreement under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See 735 ILCS 5/2- 1401 (West 2020). Michael argued mutual mistake—that he did not realize"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e321e9d-637b-4c8d-bf3b-9d449e6d73b2","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9914192-9914192","title":"CourtListener opinion 9914192","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: calculated in the same manner as the Alternate Payee's share of the Participant's accrued vested benefit is calculated pursuant to this Order.\" ¶ 13 In October 2019, Fidelity wrote Amanda a letter indicating that it approved the QDRO as \"qualified\" under ERISA and the IRS Code as appropriate. The Plan also informed Amanda, the \"Alternate Payee,\" that, \"As of 12/1/2019, the total estimated value of the benefit you are eligible to receive as a one-time lump sum payment is $440,124.35. If you choose not to take your benefit as a lump-sum payment, you may receive this estimated benefit amount as any one of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a4e5d5c-42a3-48d3-8841-7bb831db8185","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918439","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9918439 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9918439 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a4e5d5c-42a3-48d3-8841-7bb831db8185","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918439","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4a4e5d5c-42a3-48d3-8841-7bb831db8185","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918439-9918439","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918439","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances are likely to exist. [Cite as State v. Haugh, 2024-Ohio-79.] {¶23} Appellant argues his conduct did not violate the terms of the CPO because he reasonably believed the terms of a Lorain County domestic relations order \"overrode the issues of contact with the minor child.\" Brief, 6. Appellant further argues sending a \"loving note to a child from her father\" cannot be a criminal violation and there is no evidence the parental-alienation meme was intended to be seen by Jane Doe. {¶24} We disagree with appellant's characterization of the evidence. As appellee point"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8dbac559-4972-4d28-9ede-4aeee3b656e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918441","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-23-013 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 N.E.3d 1203","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9918441 Extracted reporter citation: 205 N.E.3d 1203. Docket: OT-23-013 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9918441 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8dbac559-4972-4d28-9ede-4aeee3b656e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918441","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-23-013 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 N.E.3d 1203","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8dbac559-4972-4d28-9ede-4aeee3b656e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918441","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-23-013 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 N.E.3d 1203","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l for Wife]: Right. So 17, 17 minus 14 makes. Fourteen minus three. [Counsel for Wife]: Oh, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got ya. 11,000 [Counsel for Wife]: Yup. $11,593. The [Husband's] pension through Biro Manufacturing would be divided between, for the QDRO. The dates would be June 25th, 2014 to March 9, 2023. The parties will equally split the cost of the preparation and filing of the QDRO. Personal property at the, at the marital residence to be divided, the equity between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court reserve jurisdiction over that issue. Each party will keep whateve"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8dbac559-4972-4d28-9ede-4aeee3b656e0","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9918441-9918441","title":"CourtListener opinion 9918441","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"OT-23-013 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"205 N.E.3d 1203","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: for Wife]: Fourteen, right? Well, we adjust for the 3,000. [Counsel for Wife]: Right. So 17, 17 minus 14 makes. Fourteen minus three. [Counsel for Wife]: Oh, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got ya. 11,000 [Counsel for Wife]: Yup. $11,593. The [Husband's] pension through Biro Manufacturing would be divided between, for the QDRO. The dates would be June 25th, 2014 to March 9, 2023. The parties will equally split the cost of the preparation and filing of the QDRO. Personal property at the, at the marital residence to be divided, the equity between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9925758 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunter. Extracted reporter citation: 295 P.3d 736. Docket: 84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9925758 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: KATHY JO ROHRS, No. 84708-2-I Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and JOEL DAMON ROHRS, Respondent. DWYER, J. — Kathy Rohrs appeals from an order of the superior court confirming an arbitration award and correcting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) previously entered by the court. On appeal, Kathy asserts that the superior court erred by confirming the arbitration award because, she avers, several statutory bases exist upon which the superior court should have vacated the award. Kathy also asserts that the superior court erred by correcting its QDRO because, she contends, the court did not have t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: and replaced \"Respondent\" or \"Husband\" with \"Joel\" in several of the writings at issue on appeal. 2 As applicable here, a QDRO entered by a superior court is a legal instrument that would create and recognize Kathy's right to receive some portion of Joel's retirement plan benefits. 2 No. 84708-2-I/3 This provision reflected the parties' agreement that Judge Robinson's authority to act as arbitrator would terminate when their final writings were entered as an order of the superior court, unless the parties agreed otherwise in a later writing. Between December 2021 and March 2022, Kathy and Joel submitted several disp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: W 7.04A.230(1)(d) because one of the arbitrator's factual findings was that the plan administrator rejected Kathy's QDRO and, according to Kathy, the plan administrator's rejection of Kathy's QDRO violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), codified at 29 U.S.C., ch. 18. Kathy here misses the mark. RCW 7.04A.230(1)(d) regards vacatur of an arbitration award due to an arbitrator exceeding their arbitral powers. The plan administrator is not the arbitrator, and Kathy provides no decisional authority in support of such a conflation. Additionally, Kathy vaguely asserts that a purportedly errone"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb91b131-6459-4271-b8f5-346d66a82681","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9925758-9925758","title":"CourtListener opinion 9925758","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior","extracted_reporter_citation":"295 P.3d 736","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): agreement was initially memorialized in a writing captioned as a \"CR2A Stipulation and Agreement.\" The initial writing reflected, in pertinent part, the parties' agreement that [Kathy][1] shall receive the following property: . . . [Joel's] John Hancock 401(k) funds at the time the Decree is entered. No distributions or changes in investment will be made by [Joel] to this account until the QDRO is recognized by the Plan Administrator and the monies are segregated for [Kathy]).[2] .... [Joel] shall receive the following property: . . . [Joel's] [Phantom Stock Appreciation Plan (PSAP)] with his employer[.] [J"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9926325 Docket: 23CA011939 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9926325 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 22, 2024 STEVENSON, Judge. {¶1} Leslie Gustafson-Jowiski appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which upheld a magistrate's decision amending an original stipulated qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). This Court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. {¶2} This is not the first appeal filed by Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski (\"Wife\"). Wife first appealed the trial court's judgment in Jowiski v. Gustafson-Jowiski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 21CA011807, 2022-Ohio-2816 (\"Jowiski I\"). This Court summarized the pertinent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ') married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (‘QDRO'). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: 2 [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which is the number of years [Husband] participated in said plan while married to [Wife], the denominator of whic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rders as it deems necessary to provide [Wife] with all benefits to which she is entitled or that are necessary to effectuate the terms of the Plan[.]' In 2020, Husband filed a ‘Motion to Modify and Clarify Judgment Entry Regarding [Husband's] Retirement and Pension' (‘Motion to Modify'). In it, he asserted that he worked for Ford for 12 years while the parties were married, continued to work there after the divorce, and was set to retire after working there for over 35 years. He asserted that, while he was married to Wife, he did not actively contribute to his retirement. According to Husband, had he continued to not"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"87cea170-99ad-4b27-9b0b-430c978337ef","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926325-9926325","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926325","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23CA011939 Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: RY Dated: January 22, 2024 STEVENSON, Judge. {¶1} Leslie Gustafson-Jowiski appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which upheld a magistrate's decision amending an original stipulated qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"). This Court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. {¶2} This is not the first appeal filed by Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski (\"Wife\"). Wife first appealed the trial court's judgment in Jowiski v. Gustafson-Jowiski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 21CA011807, 2022-Ohio-2816 (\"Jowiski I\"). This Court summarized the pertinent"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78da22f9-03c0-4981-8770-7302f9651447","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"35 Cal.4th 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9926843 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CANDY and TERENCE BONNER. Extracted reporter citation: 35 Cal.4th 15. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9926843 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78da22f9-03c0-4981-8770-7302f9651447","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"35 Cal.4th 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78da22f9-03c0-4981-8770-7302f9651447","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"35 Cal.4th 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: made direct payments to Candy for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. \"Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. \"During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El Cajon house. The El Cajon house produced rental income during the parties' entire separation,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78da22f9-03c0-4981-8770-7302f9651447","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"35 Cal.4th 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: l court entered a judgment of dissolution as to the parties' marital status only. \"Terence is retired from employment with an agency of the federal government, where he worked from May 1978 until May 2010. Since retirement, Terence has received a federal pension, but he did not share the pension with Candy for the first two years after separation. In July 2014, in response to a request filed by Candy, the trial court ordered Terence to pay Candy half of his pension on a going forward basis. A domestic relations order (DRO) was created to implement the division. Terence made direct payments to Candy for her sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"78da22f9-03c0-4981-8770-7302f9651447","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9926843-9926843","title":"CourtListener opinion 9926843","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"35 Cal.4th 15","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t payments to Candy for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. \"Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. \"During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El Cajon house. The El Cajon house produced rental income during the parties' entire separation,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f8ceb0c-96a3-4042-b55a-29ad98c18d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9927000 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9927000 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f8ceb0c-96a3-4042-b55a-29ad98c18d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f8ceb0c-96a3-4042-b55a-29ad98c18d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lue, and Mr. Bible objected to his retirement being subject to equitable distribution. At the January 31, 2023, final hearing the family court ordered that Mr. Bible's remaining $14,500.00 retirement amount be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Ms. Bible again objected to the family court's decision to use the appraisal value for the marital home rather than using a square footage replacement value calculation, as provided in the Agreement. Additionally, the family court held that Ms. Bible was entitled credit for 50% of 117 payments on the mortgage at $855.62 per payment, for a total of $54,00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f8ceb0c-96a3-4042-b55a-29ad98c18d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and Tina Gilbert has no retirement at the time of marriage.\" The family court held that only the premarital $16,500.00 portion of Mr. Bible's retirement was excluded by the Agreement and ordered that the remaining balance of $14,500.00 be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We agree with Mr. Bible for this assignment of error. The Agreement clearly and unambiguously states that each party waived any interest in the other's retirement. Therefore, we reverse the family court's ruling as to Mr. Bible's retirement. Pursuant to the Agreement, Ms. Bible should not receive any of Mr. Bible's retirement. Accordingly, as to t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1f8ceb0c-96a3-4042-b55a-29ad98c18d56","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927000-9927000","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927000","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: d that only $16,500.00 of Mr. Bible's $31,000.00 retirement was excluded by the Agreement. Ms. Bible objected to the marital home's value being determined by appraisal rather than by replacement value, and Mr. Bible objected to his retirement being subject to equitable distribution. At the January 31, 2023, final hearing the family court ordered that Mr. Bible's remaining $14,500.00 retirement amount be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\"). Ms. Bible again objected to the family court's decision to use the appraisal value for the marital home rather than using a square footage replacement value calculation, as prov"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9927846 Extracted reporter citation: 979 N.W.2d 867. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9927846 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: vision regarding the division of husband's pension benefits: Respondent is entitled to a marital interest share of petitioner's Honeywell Retirement Benefit Plan to be computed pursuant to the formula set forth in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which is a separate document and incorporated by reference. The respondent is awarded all interest in his NWA, Inc. pension plan except as set forth in the aforesaid QDRO. (Emphasis added.) Despite the J&D's reference to a QDRO, no QDRO was ever submitted to the court for approval or filed in the dissolution proceeding. As a result, the dissolution"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , Inc., and specified the value of those benefits at the time of dissolution. The J&D also included the following provision regarding the division of husband's pension benefits: Respondent is entitled to a marital interest share of petitioner's Honeywell Retirement Benefit Plan to be computed pursuant to the formula set forth in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which is a separate document and incorporated by reference. The respondent is awarded all interest in his NWA, Inc. pension plan except as set forth in the aforesaid QDRO. (Emphasis added.) Despite the J&D's reference to a QDRO, no QDRO was ever sub"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: challenges the district court's partial denial of her motion to amend the parties' dissolution judgment and decree (J&D), arguing that the district court erred by denying her request for an amendment specifying that she is entitled to half of respondent's pension plan. Because the district court did not consider whether appellant may be entitled to the requested relief based on the supreme court's decision in Pooley v. Pooley, 979 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 2022), we reverse and remand. FACTS Appellant Mary Jean Latterell (wife) and respondent Chriss O. Latterell (husband) dissolved their marriage by a J&D, entered on"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"415fb4df-4573-409e-960c-16f8c09e718c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9927846-9927846","title":"CourtListener opinion 9927846","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"979 N.W.2d 867","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: was entitled to half of husband's Northwest Airlines pension benefits pursuant to the QDRO. In an affidavit supporting her motion, wife stated that she understood the \"marital interest share\" language in the J&D to mean that she was entitled to \"50% of the marital portion of the [Northwest Airlines pension].\" Wife also stated that it was her understanding that husband's attorney was responsible for preparing and submitting a QDRO for approval by the dissolution court in 1993 but never did so. Husband opposed the motion. Husband acknowledged that the J&D was \"fraught with errors and omissions,\" including references to a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0378a8-c0b6-401a-ada6-18af6665fc45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928185","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"263 A.3d 972","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9928185 Extracted case name: BETH E. ANKETELL v. MARTIN KULLDORFF. Extracted reporter citation: 263 A.3d 972. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9928185 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0378a8-c0b6-401a-ada6-18af6665fc45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928185","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"263 A.3d 972","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0378a8-c0b6-401a-ada6-18af6665fc45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928185","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"263 A.3d 972","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: granting the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for clarification and for postjudgment interest. In accordance with the dissolution judgment, the defendant was required to transfer $175,000 from the retirement funds of his choice to the plaintiff by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In its decision, the trial court indicated that such amount could be adjusted to reflect any gains or losses that occurred prior to the judg- ment. The defendant appealed from the dissolution judgment, asserting claims of error unrelated to the division of his retirement funds. The orders of the judgment were stayed during the pending appeal, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0378a8-c0b6-401a-ada6-18af6665fc45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928185","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"263 A.3d 972","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ity number, but I'm . . . glad that she has provided [it] at this time. They haven't sent a bill yet. As soon as they send a bill, I will pay my part of it. There's one issue . . . I thought they were charging per company, but they [are] actually charging per retirement account, and my retirement is split into more than half a dozen different accounts, so I specified three accounts, but I think they are going to—I'm going to revise that. I'll send them an email later today. So there [are] only two accounts. . . . I don't have enough money in one account. I can't do one account, so I have to do two. But that will save both me and ["}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"eb0378a8-c0b6-401a-ada6-18af6665fc45","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928185-9928185","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928185","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"263 A.3d 972","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he plaintiff's postjudgment motion for clarification and for postjudgment interest. In accordance with the dissolution judgment, the defendant was required to transfer $175,000 from the retirement funds of his choice to the plaintiff by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In its decision, the trial court indicated that such amount could be adjusted to reflect any gains or losses that occurred prior to the judg- ment. The defendant appealed from the dissolution judgment, asserting claims of error unrelated to the division of his retirement funds. The orders of the judgment were stayed during the pending appeal, a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9928362 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9928362 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y, but it seems to allege that her ex-husband \"never reported or disclosed\" their marriage \"to the GM . . . [b]enefits office.\" Id. \"Nevertheless,\" Saunders says she is entitled to pension benefits either under her ex-husband's pension plan or pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") within the meaning of ERISA. Id. Saunders sued her ex-husband and PBGC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Id. at 1. The Georgia court dismissed Saunders' ex-husband from the case for want of personal jurisdiction, Dkt. 40, and then transferred her remaining claims against PBGC to this district, Dkt. 50. PBGC move"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEBORAH A. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. No. 23-cv-2154 (DLF) MALACHIAH SAUNDERS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Deborah A. Saunders, proceeding pro se, seeks relief from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Before the Court is PBGC's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 49. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. Saunders is the ex-wife of Malachiah Saunders, a former employee of General Motors. Pl.'s Pet. for Decla"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Plaintiff, v. No. 23-cv-2154 (DLF) MALACHIAH SAUNDERS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Deborah A. Saunders, proceeding pro se, seeks relief from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (\"PBGC\") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Before the Court is PBGC's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 49. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. Saunders is the ex-wife of Malachiah Saunders, a former employee of General Motors. Pl.'s Pet. for Declaratory J. & Injunctive Relief at 2, Dkt. 5. Her complaint is not a model of clarity, but it seems to all"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0db60843-8bc2-448d-825a-7156f628f48d","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9928362-9928362","title":"CourtListener opinion 9928362","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"550 U.S. 544","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: n plan, her complaint does not \"plead[] factual content\" that makes the contention \"plausible.\" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Indeed, her filings do not quote, cite, or summarize the terms of the General Motors plan. They allege that Saunders has \"rights\" as an \"alternate payee\" and is \"qualified\" as a \"former-spouse\" under that plan, Pl.'s Pet. at 2–3, Dkt. 5, but those assertions amount to legal conclusions that the Court may properly disregard, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 2 Nor does Saunders plausibly allege that PBGC must award her benefits pursuant to a QDRO. Although ERISA says that \"benefits provided under [a] plan"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9931428 Docket: twenty-two. 6. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9931428 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: distribution of the marital estate, the family court awarded Wife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because \"all grounds [Wife] raise[d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: pellate Procedure. Next, we address Wife's tenth assignment of error. In this error, she contends that the circuit court erred when it remanded the case to family court for additional findings of fact regarding the taxes paid by Husband for withdrawals from retirement accounts and asserts that she did not receive her one-half share of said withdrawals. Upon review, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. First, Wife provided no documentation on appeal to support her argument. Second, the issue was remanded with instructions for the family court to gather additional information as to the withdrawals from the retirement"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because \"all grounds [Wife] raise[d] for appeal 2 pertain[ed] to her"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15487c46-a3a9-40b2-918b-3f23df101fbb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9931428-9931428","title":"CourtListener opinion 9931428","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"twenty-two. 6","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion of the marital estate, the family court awarded Wife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because \"all grounds [Wife] raise[d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9940102 Extracted case name: S.M.C. v. W.P.C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 44 WDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9940102 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: marital residence. Id. at 50. However, the trial court changed this recommendation, awarding the equity in the marital residence to Wife. Id. Instead, Husband received $457,041.00 of Wife's IRA and 401(k), which, he complains, is only accessible through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Id. According to Husband, he will incur a mandatory 20% tax withholding if he attempts to access these funds. Id. - 19 - J-S46019-23 Husband argues the master and trial court improperly considered only his reasonable needs, without taking into consideration his standard of living obtained during the marriage. Id. at 51. Our standard of review rega"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 701. The master addressed each of these factors in the MRR. See MRR, 12/23/20, at 14-17. In its opinion, the trial court explained its decision not to award Husband alimony: The Wife is employed with Genzyme Corporation making $9,801.42 per month, with retirement benefits, a company car, and medical and life insurance. [Husband] is employed by Humility of Mary with a net monthly income of $2,125.34, with retirement benefits and medical benefits. The Husband has an associate[s] degree in marketing and experience in the managerial field. However, during the marriage, the Husband decided to become a farmer and operated a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ncome of $33,000.00 per year. 9 J-S46019-23 c. Based on Wife's representations, her net monthly income was determined to be $9,035.19. Spousal support was calculated at $2,050.06 minus child support. d. Wife testified at the Master's Hearing that her pension contribution was not mandatory. e. On August 20, 2020, Husband filed for an upward modification of support retroactive to November 19, 2019, \"the date [Wife] knew her pension was nonmandatory.\" Husband's Brief at 24. f. Without any calculations, the trial court modified Wife's monthly support obligation to $717.53, an increase of $96.25. See gener"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae98d242-8674-40b1-8ef6-cb2f2ea95d4f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9940102-9940102","title":"CourtListener opinion 9940102","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"44 WDA 2023","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): perly relied on the domestic relations order, which was calculated without the benefit of Wife's 2019 tax return and W-2. Id. Husband further claims the trial court failed to consider that Wife's company provides her with a company car, a 150% match on her 401(k) contributions, and medical and dental insurance. Id. Husband asserts the master and court ignored the fact that he worked as a farmer, has an annual gross income of $33,000, and a net income of $2,125.34 per month. Id. at 45-46. In addition, Wife is 49 years old and in good health, while Husband is 54 years old and has a prior history of skin cancer."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9941228 Extracted reporter citation: 199 S.W.3d 279. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9941228 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2.20 out of an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in \"numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets\" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as \"more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court.\" The decree award included \"interest, dividends, gains, or losses\" on the awards, but did not reflect the amounts of cash and/or securities contained in the accounts in question.2 What, at first blush, appears to state a monetary award of $1,062,242.20 out of the designated Edward Jones account was subsequently clarified by an orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: we issued our mandate on April 19, 2021. 2 III. Analysis The September 7, 2018, divorce decree awarded Kathryn two Merrill Lynch investment accounts, with a combined value of $548,177.25, and the equivalent value of $1,062,242.20 out of an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in \"numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets\" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as \"more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court.\" The decree award included \"interest, dividends, gains, or losses\" on the awards, but di"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in \"numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets\" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as \"more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court.\" The decree award included \"interest, dividends, gains, or losses\" on the awards, but did not reflect the amounts of cash and/or securities contained in the accounts in question.2 What, at first blush, appears to state a monetary award of $1,062,242.20 out of the designated Edward Jones account was subsequently clarified by an orde"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"deae6559-13bb-4adf-b7de-6a170aef0b53","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941228-9941228","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941228","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"199 S.W.3d 279","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: early 1990s and sought a divorce in 2017. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the parties' marital estate, awarding Kathryn part or all of three brokerage accounts. When George appealed the trial court's decision, we affirmed the lower court's property division, and our Supreme Court denied George's petition for review. See Danner v. Danner, No. 09-18-00385-CV, 2020 WL 6325725 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 29, 2020, pet. denied). During the lengthy appellate process, 1 Kathryn was denied access to the brokerage accounts awarded to her and, therefore, sought interest on the value of those accounts. The trial court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"810aea85-4157-44cb-9cf1-14948ac5590e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"235 S.W.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9941296 Extracted case name: MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT v. FAMILY DIVISION HONORABLE RICHARD A. WOESTE. Extracted reporter citation: 235 S.W.3d 1. Docket: 2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9941296 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"810aea85-4157-44cb-9cf1-14948ac5590e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"235 S.W.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"810aea85-4157-44cb-9cf1-14948ac5590e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"235 S.W.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to, in return for -6- getting the total equity in the automobile, Husband was awarded the total possible profit from a children's book he wrote. Husband was ordered to equally divide his 401K and stock. The family court ordered the parties to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said division. The cost of such was divided in proportion to the parties' percentage of income with Husband paying 85% and Wife paying 15%. Each party was ordered to pay the debt incurred in his or her sole name. The family court determined that the outstanding tax debt of $10,074 was marital and ordered it to be paid in proportion to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"810aea85-4157-44cb-9cf1-14948ac5590e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"235 S.W.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Newport, Kentucky, and Walnut Creek, California. The family court awarded Husband the $45,000 equity in the California condominium, finding that he used half of the proceeds from the sale of the Newport, Kentucky, property, and a loan he took out from his 401K to assist with the down payment for the Walnut Creek, California condominium. Wife had a 2017 Mercedes GLA with a value of $29,024 and with debt attached of $25,846. Husband had a 2018 Audi Q3 with a value of $22,500 and with a debt attached of $22,966.28. Husband had a $114,161.29 401K Plan. Husband took a loan out on the 401K Plan. The parties agree"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"810aea85-4157-44cb-9cf1-14948ac5590e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9941296-9941296","title":"CourtListener opinion 9941296","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"235 S.W.3d 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: urn for -6- getting the total equity in the automobile, Husband was awarded the total possible profit from a children's book he wrote. Husband was ordered to equally divide his 401K and stock. The family court ordered the parties to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said division. The cost of such was divided in proportion to the parties' percentage of income with Husband paying 85% and Wife paying 15%. Each party was ordered to pay the debt incurred in his or her sole name. The family court determined that the outstanding tax debt of $10,074 was marital and ordered it to be paid in proportion to the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9943195 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kehoe and Farkas. Docket: 1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9943195 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: respondent's 401(k) plan. ¶2 The petitioner, Lori K. Plier (Lori), appeals from an order of the circuit court granting the motion of the respondent, David G. Plier (David), to enforce their Judgement for Dissolution of No. 1-23-0941 Marriage and amend the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to that order. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. ¶3 The facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal are not in dispute. The parties were married on May 29, 1999. Irreconcilable differences arose between them, resulting in a breakdown of their marriage. As a consequence, Lori filed a petition for dissolution of the mar"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: itten Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), purporting to settle between them, among other things, the division of property. Relevant to the issues in this case, are the following provisions of Article XIII, paragraph 8.1 of the MSA: \"A. David has a 401(k) retirement plan with his employer, Retail First, Inc., valued at $90,000 as of March 1, 2022. Documentation will be provided to verify the current amount. B. Lori shall be entitled to 50% of this 401(k) account as of the date of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage. C.. A QDRO shall be drafted by Lori's attorney to effect the transfer of such funds a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ed the circuit court's order granting the respondent's motion to enforce the parties dissolution judgement and entering an amended QRDO, finding that the parties' marital settlement agreement was unambiguous on the issue of the division of the respondent's 401(k) plan. ¶2 The petitioner, Lori K. Plier (Lori), appeals from an order of the circuit court granting the motion of the respondent, David G. Plier (David), to enforce their Judgement for Dissolution of No. 1-23-0941 Marriage and amend the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to that order. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. ¶3"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"046e1e63-293d-4a46-bbef-04a6f3f13844","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9943195-9943195","title":"CourtListener opinion 9943195","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: et forth verbatim as the judgement of this Court. ¶7 On that same date, the circuit court entered a QDRO relating to David's 401(k) plan that was drafted by Lori's attorney and which, in the first paragraph of paragraph 7, stated as follows: \"7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit. This order assigns to the Alternate Payee [Lori] -3- No. 1-23-0941 an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Participant's Account Balance accumulated under the Plan as of May 27, 2022 (or the closest valuation date thereto) plus any interest and investment earnings or losses attributable thereon for periods subsequent to May 27, 2"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9946288 Extracted case name: VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP. Extracted reporter citation: 537 P.3d 807. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9946288 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: enting time followed, resulting in more than 400 post-decree docket entries. ¶3 In May 2022, Mother filed a petition to enforce, arguing Father failed to pay her portion of their 1st Bank Savings Account, \"failed to pay his 50% share of the cost of preparing QDRO's\" for Father's Motorola 401K account, and failed to pay all his spousal maintenance obligations. In September 2022, before the court ruled on Mother's petition to enforce, Father filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.2 1 The facts and procedural history recited are limited to those relevant to this specific appeal; additional information is avai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: N CAMP Decision of the Court not know whether Mother is presently employed full time as a teacher or has begun training and employment\"; (2) he speculated \"Mother's residential property has skyrocketed [in value]\"; (3) \"[he] believes that [the] value of the retirement accounts awarded to Mother have substantially increased\" and (4) because the three children were no longer minors, \"Mother's monthly reasonable needs have substantially decreased.\" By failing to allege or provide any basis for changed circumstances, Father has shown no error in the court concluding he did not prove a substantial and continuing change. See Trantor v"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): g in more than 400 post-decree docket entries. ¶3 In May 2022, Mother filed a petition to enforce, arguing Father failed to pay her portion of their 1st Bank Savings Account, \"failed to pay his 50% share of the cost of preparing QDRO's\" for Father's Motorola 401K account, and failed to pay all his spousal maintenance obligations. In September 2022, before the court ruled on Mother's petition to enforce, Father filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.2 1 The facts and procedural history recited are limited to those relevant to this specific appeal; additional information is available in Marriage of Van Camp"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"528f1dd2-6575-4502-918b-b18f080538aa","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9946288-9946288","title":"CourtListener opinion 9946288","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC","extracted_reporter_citation":"537 P.3d 807","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r's Petition to Enforce. ¶14 Father argues the superior court erred by granting Mother's May 2022 petition to enforce Father's payment obligations under the decree. The resulting March 2023 ruling ordered Father to pay $500 for his \"portion of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order preparation fees\" for Father's Motorola 401K account. ¶15 On appeal, Father only addresses the order that he pay $500 for preparation of the QDRO fees, asserting Mother's claim for that payment was time-barred under A.R.S. § 25-318(P). Father has not cited, and the court has not found, any legal authority applying the language of A.R.S. 25-318(P) to the en"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b57152b4-b93d-4a2e-a755-56cfbe742cb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9948775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9948775 Extracted case name: C.L.A. v. D.P.M. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9948775 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b57152b4-b93d-4a2e-a755-56cfbe742cb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9948775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b57152b4-b93d-4a2e-a755-56cfbe742cb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9948775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ting the OCSS Recommendation resulted in an unresolved matter that required further action and, therefore, rendered the May 25, 2023 order not a final, appealable order. Husband analogizes the OCSS Recommendation to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A \"QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife argues tha"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b57152b4-b93d-4a2e-a755-56cfbe742cb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9948775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tion to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A \"QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife argues that any judgment that leaves issues unresolved is not a final, appealable order. Wife also argues that consistent with the holding in M.E.D. v. P.K., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112070, 2023-Ohio-3471, the current appea"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b57152b4-b93d-4a2e-a755-56cfbe742cb9","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9948775-9948775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9948775","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ence of a court order adopting the OCSS Recommendation resulted in an unresolved matter that required further action and, therefore, rendered the May 25, 2023 order not a final, appealable order. Husband analogizes the OCSS Recommendation to a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A \"QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife arg"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9949740 Extracted reporter citation: 204 A.3d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9949740 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: led an objection to defendant's motion for summary judgment on September 20, 2021. The next day, hours before a hearing on the parties' motions, plaintiff filed an amended motion, styled as an \"amended motion for relief from judgment and to compel entry of QDRO with survivorship language,\" 4 under Rule 60(b). In the amended motion, plaintiff focused less on the express reference to COLAs and pre-retirement options and more on the language that she was entitled 4 A \"QDRO\" is a qualified domestic relations order. -5- to \"any benefits such as\" those expressly stated. \"A survivorship annuity,\" she reasoned, \"f"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e. The provision reads, in relevant part, \"in the event that [defendant] is entitled to receive a pension * * * as a result of his employment as a civilian with the federal government, [plaintiff] shall be entitled to receive one-half [sic] of his civilian retirement plan from the date of his employment until June 30, 2018.\" Two weeks after the nominal divorce hearing, on July 16, 2018, the Family Court entered a decision pending entry of final judgment, presented by defendant's attorney, that incorporated the agreement \"as a separate, independent contract.\" Nevertheless, the provisions relating to defendant's pensions"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as her motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt. At the heart of the plaintiff's several arguments on appeal is a belief that her marital settlement agreement with the defendant, her ex-husband, entitles her to survivor benefits in his federal civilian pension. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the plaintiff's written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this 1 The defendant did not partic"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"35d6ef60-f249-4f31-8f5a-ccf9c834dbd6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9949740-9949740","title":"CourtListener opinion 9949740","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"204 A.3d 1102","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nd to compel entry of QDRO with survivorship language,\" 4 under Rule 60(b). In the amended motion, plaintiff focused less on the express reference to COLAs and pre-retirement options and more on the language that she was entitled 4 A \"QDRO\" is a qualified domestic relations order. -5- to \"any benefits such as\" those expressly stated. \"A survivorship annuity,\" she reasoned, \"falls into that category of ‘any benefit.'\" In the alternative, plaintiff argued that the agreement was \"ambiguous regarding the issue of the entitlement to a survivorship option.\" The plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment, contempt, entry of a qu"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"772d475a-0f25-4026-8974-ae3fd06d4e7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942","title":"CourtListener opinion 9950942","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in the Clerk","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9950942 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: sheet in the Clerk. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9950942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"772d475a-0f25-4026-8974-ae3fd06d4e7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942","title":"CourtListener opinion 9950942","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in the Clerk","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"772d475a-0f25-4026-8974-ae3fd06d4e7f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9950942-9950942","title":"CourtListener opinion 9950942","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"sheet in the Clerk","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ef. Although the appellate record includes a few documents in the Clerk's Record from Mother's and Frank's divorce—the Original Petition For Divorce, Frank's answer, the Mediated Settlement Agreement, the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, and some Qualified Domestic Relations Orders—it doesn't include the information mentioned in the Agreed Decree, specifically \"the record of testimony\" that the trial court noted \"was duly reported by the Court reporter for [the] 418th Judicial District Court.\" Additionally, the docket sheet in the Clerk's Record includes docket entries relevant to the proceedings in Mother's and Frank's divorce."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9952811 Extracted case name: S.D. v. G.D. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 23S-DN-245. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9952811 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . A court must also \"consider the tax consequences of the property disposition.\" Id. § -7. This case turns on the application of these statutes to Husband's government pension—the bulk of the marital estate. Often, pension benefits can be assigned through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which streamlines the division of marital property in dissolution actions by requiring plan administrators to pay the benefits directly to a former spouse. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d); Pond v. Pond, 700 N.E.2d 1130, 1134 n.8 (Ind. 1998). But governmental plans, such as Husband's police pension, cannot be divided through a QDRO. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: monious. When a divorce falls toward the latter end of that spectrum, as is the case here, Indiana law provides courts with useful tools to secure each party's share. The trial court here used one such tool to secure a wife's portion of her husband's police pension—the bulk of the marital estate. Throughout the case, the husband defiantly claimed his wife was not entitled to any of his pension and that he would likely ignore any court order to that effect. In response, the court ordered the husband to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy to ensure the wife received her share. The husband now challenges the tri"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e, his police pension had a market value of $1,101,110.82, constituting over 85% of the $1,257,934.96 marital estate. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-DN-245 | March 20, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Because Husband's pension could not be divided through a qualified domestic relations order, the parties' stipulated marital balance sheet proposed an equal distribution of assets that awarded the pension to Husband and an equalization payment to Wife. Yet both in and out of court, Husband persistently stated he was not willing to share his pension with Wife. As a result, Wife expressed concern that she \"will get nothing and he will pay me nothing"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9c0cd05c-f4bb-4429-a441-84abb9a2d0fe","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9952811-9952811","title":"CourtListener opinion 9952811","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23S-DN-245","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: iana Court of Appeals No. 22A-DN-1202 Opinion by Chief Justice Rush Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. Rush, Chief Justice. Among the many issues trial courts must resolve in dissolution cases is ensuring each party receives a fair and equitable distribution of the marital estate. But divorces can run the gamut from amicable to acrimonious. When a divorce falls toward the latter end of that spectrum, as is the case here, Indiana law provides courts with useful tools to secure each party's share. The trial court here used one such tool to secure a wife's portion of her husband's police pension—the bulk of the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9955748 Extracted case name: MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE TERRI KING SCHOBORG. Extracted reporter citation: 245 S.W.3d 222. Docket: 2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9955748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he proceeds into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Savings Account2 as marital property, and thus, whether it also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sold his premarital residence and deposited the proceeds into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Sav"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Savings Account2 as marital property, and thus, whether it also"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e8c8f019-3c4c-4009-b55d-8e8edf315e1c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9955748-9955748","title":"CourtListener opinion 9955748","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"245 S.W.3d 222","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: vidence should be appropriately considered. We do not opine as to what type or degree of tracing evidence is necessary here. However, we do observe that the thrust of Allen and Chenault is to reduce overly stringent tracing requirements where appropriate. See Property division – Permissible methods of tracing, 15 KY. PRAC. DOMESTIC RELATIONS L. § 15:13. -8- reconsider his nonmarital interest in Husband's Savings Account.4 To be clear, this account concerns a similar Allen issue. And again, we make no decision as to the existence or amount of potentially nonmarital property in either of these accounts. We will now address an"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9956538 Extracted case name: In re Matter of Marriage of Denning & Stokes. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: entries. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9956538 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: his opinion. BACKGROUND Mark and appellee Cherelle M. Allen married in 1995 and separated in 2021. During the parties' marriage, Mark served in the United States Armed Forces. It is undisputed that Mark's military service entitles him to receive certain retirement benefits. 04-22-00677-CV During their divorce proceedings, Mark and Cherelle entered into a mediated settlement agreement. On April 27, 2022, the trial court signed an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce memorializing the parties' agreement. The final decree contained the following paragraphs dividing Mark's military retirement benefits: • IT IS ORDERED AND DECR"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan.\" Gow v. Sevener, No. 05- 16-01037-CV, 2017 WL 5897448, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). The DRO in this case is intended \"to direct a military service, rather than a civil pension plan administrator,\" to make payments out of Mark's retirement benefits to Cherelle. See Hicks v. Hicks, 348 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Like a divorce decree, a DRO \"is a final, appealable order.\" In re Matter of Marriage of Denning & Stokes, 651 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). \"The po"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: lle contends Mark's first and -3- 04-22-00677-CV second issues lack merit because the trial court rendered the DRO at the same time it rendered the final decree. Standard of Review and Applicable Law The purpose of a DRO \"is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan.\" Gow v. Sevener, No. 05- 16-01037-CV, 2017 WL 5897448, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). The DRO in this case is intended \"to direct a military service, rather than a civil pension plan administrator,\" to make payments out of M"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7bea036e-944a-41b4-88e5-799afdff3132","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956538-9956538","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956538","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"entries","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed coincident with this decree and incorporated verbatim in it by reference. 2 (emphasis added) Both Mark and his then-attorney signed the final decree, and it is undisputed that Mark agreed to its terms. On June 3, 2022, Mark filed a \"Motion to Sign the Domestic Relations Order.\" Mark's motion stated that he \"believe[d] the proposed Domestic Relations Order accurately reflects the agreements\" memorialized in the final decree, and he asked the trial court to \"enter the proposed 1 Mark refers to this provision as paragraph W-6. 2 Mark refers to this provision as paragraph H-10. -2- 04-22-00677-CV Domestic Relations Order, w"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcb5f889-8744-40d7-8951-8c983efaf539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9956539 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9956539 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcb5f889-8744-40d7-8951-8c983efaf539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcb5f889-8744-40d7-8951-8c983efaf539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: LE M. ALLEN by this Court. MARK EDWIN ALLEN IS FURTHER ORDERED, after the date of this Order and absent prior authorization by order of this Court, not to do any of the following: (a) merge military member's military retired pay with any other benefit, pension or other entitlement; (b) exercise a waiver of an equivalent amount of retirement pay having the effect of reducing military member's disposable retirement pay; and (c) otherwise take or forego any action if it would have the effect of reducing or limiting CHERELLE M. ALLEN's right to receive former 04-22-00677-CV spouse's full separate property sh"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"bcb5f889-8744-40d7-8951-8c983efaf539","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9956539-9956539","title":"CourtListener opinion 9956539","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nduct additional fact-finding necessary to determine which federal statutory formula or formulas must be used to calculate appellant Mark Edwin Allen's retirement pay for the purposes of determining appellee Cherelle M. Allen's share; and (3) enter an amended domestic relations order that specifies and applies the mathematical formula(s) and other requirements mandated by Chapter 10 of the United States Code, including the requirement that appellant's retirement pay be calculated as of the date of the parties' divorce, to calculate both appellant's military retirement pay and appellee's post-divorce share of that pay. We AFFIRM the re"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9957418 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: 2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9957418 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ay would be moot. See Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-5466, 816 N.E.2d 238 (dismissing appeal as moot due to lack of any available remedy). Accordingly, Wife's 17th assignment of error is overruled as moot. 13. Qualified Domestic Relations Order In her 18th and final assignment of error, Wife argues that the \"trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the qualified domestic relations order.\" A qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-O"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hy [Wife] wasn't paying\" the mortgage. \"I think she — her position was she didn't live there anymore, so she wasn't responsible.\" He further testified that he ultimately paid the country club bills in an amount of \"maybe 10 to $15,000. * * * I liquidated a retirement plan with a pretty substantial penalty in an effort to pay down the balances of both clubs because it was a lien on the house and another threatened lien, and we couldn't sell the house with the lien. And then I used the remaining funds to make repairs to the house that the Realtor made the recommendation that we do in an effort to get the house sold.\" Acco"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: In her 18th and final assignment of error, Wife argues that the \"trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the qualified domestic relations order.\" A qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" Employee Retireme"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"92895757-ace2-4031-89ab-8a308802c8d5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9957418-9957418","title":"CourtListener opinion 9957418","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: domestic relations order (\"QDRO\") \"implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *.\" Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(1)(A)(i). \"So long as the QDRO is consistent with the [divorce] decree, * * * the court does not lac"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9958276 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 966. Docket: 2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958276 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ngaged in \"secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct.\" March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered the parties' split the cost of the child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hecking and joint savings accounts with Bank of America. The joint savings account was charged a monthly maintenance fee which, according to Wife, began after Husband withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ousal support was not appropriate as Wife engaged in \"secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct.\" March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f78c44e9-e654-4031-b0bc-3c64a8b9417c","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958276-9958276","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958276","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 7 {¶14} Wife was unable to work full-time due to the needs of the parties' youngest child. Wife expressed her desire to be named the legal custodian"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9958396 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 966. Docket: 2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958396 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ngaged in \"secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct.\" March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered the parties' split the cost of the child"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: hecking and joint savings accounts with Bank of America. The joint savings account was charged a monthly maintenance fee which, according to Wife, began after Husband withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 00"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ousal support was not appropriate as Wife engaged in \"secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct.\" March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5208fe76-280b-4d46-a982-d0d57ff8a5dd","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958396-9958396","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958396","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"136 N.E.3d 966","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 7 {¶14} Wife was unable to work full-time due to the needs of the parties' youngest child. Wife expressed her desire to be named the legal custodian"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9958638 Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958638 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ls, 6th Dist. No. L- No. 23AP-140 30 09-1190, 2010-Ohio-3525, ¶ 14, and Makar v. Makar, 7th Dist. No. 02-CA-37, 2003-Ohio- 1071, ¶ 20. {¶ 96} In Hoyt, the Supreme Court of Ohio approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a qualified domestic relations order but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 183-84. And, indeed, in Daniel, the court held that use of the coverture fraction to divide unmatured pension benefits—whether at the time of divorce or later—is a \"reasonable method[] of achieving equit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: issued a decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law on the various issues contested by the parties. In relevant part, the trial court valued Ms. Bricker's vested but unmatured Revlon pension at $1 (first assignment of error); awarded Ms. Bricker's retirement accounts to her, alone, on account of Mr. Hall's financial misconduct and/or equity (second assignment of error); found Mr. Hall solely responsible for the balance owed on the HELOC debt, including the $22,330.86 paid by Ms. Bricker after Mr. Hall stopped making payments (third assignment No. 23AP-140 3 of error); and awarded Mr. Hall $36,052.50 after calculating"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: proposed decrees of divorce. On January 30, 2023, the trial court issued a decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law on the various issues contested by the parties. In relevant part, the trial court valued Ms. Bricker's vested but unmatured Revlon pension at $1 (first assignment of error); awarded Ms. Bricker's retirement accounts to her, alone, on account of Mr. Hall's financial misconduct and/or equity (second assignment of error); found Mr. Hall solely responsible for the balance owed on the HELOC debt, including the $22,330.86 paid by Ms. Bricker after Mr. Hall stopped making payments (third assignment"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6492d09-96b5-4bdd-b9db-dd413df9d761","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9958638-9958638","title":"CourtListener opinion 9958638","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"937 S.W.2d 823","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): of the parties' marriage. (See, e.g., Tr. Vol. I at 37-42; Tr. Vol. III at 559, Tr. Vol. IV at 617, 630-45, 658-59, 679. See generally Divorce Decree at 6.) On the de facto termination date of the parties' marriage, October 9, 2017, Ms. Bricker owned several defined contribution retirement accounts, which the trial court found had a total cash value of $579,423. (See Divorce Decree at 6.) She also had a vested pension from Revlon with a monthly benefit of $1,877 when it matures on July 1, 2026. (Ex. 35. Compare Divorce Decree at 6.) In contrast, Mr. Hall had no marital retirement accounts subject to division and allocation between"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9961630 Extracted case name: MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM UNION FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE BRANDI H. ROGERS. Extracted reporter citation: 218 S.W.3d 395. Docket: 2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9961630 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be divided equally and each party will receive $766.32 per month. Commencing July 1, 2014, the Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of $766.32 per month representing her portion of his military retirement. He shall continue to do so until such time as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order has been entered and the Wife has begun receiving those benefits directly from the military. On February 24, 2023, Wife filed a pro se motion seeking to recover the value of the annual COLA that Husband had been receiving as part of his military retirement benefits.1 In response, Husband argued that the Agreement 1 Wife further asserted that Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: UDGE: Appellant, Joseph David Willett (\"Husband\"), appeals from a post-decree order of the Union Family Court directing him to pay Appellee, Shannon Michelle Willett (\"Wife\"), the value of Cost-of-Living Adjustments (\"COLA\") from the marital portion of his retirement benefits. Because Husband failed to show that he properly reserved his allegations of error, we review the Family Court's order for manifest injustice. Finding no such manifest injustice, we affirm. The relevant facts of this matter are as follows. Husband and Wife married in 1988 and separated in 2014. Two children were born of the marriage, but only one is"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: has attained the age of 70. Upon the occurrence of these events the cost will terminate but the coverage will continue. The Wife wishes to continue this coverage and therefore, prior to the disbursement to the Wife of her portion of the Husband's military pension the cost of said coverage will be deducted from the total -2- monthly benefit. The Husband enlisted in the military approximately two months prior to the marriage and was in the military for a total of 241 months. The Husband is entitled to a non-marital interest in said military retirement benefits to be computed as follows: 2 (the number of mont"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a655e1e-a8b8-45fe-8dc9-3a149494f94f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9961630-9961630","title":"CourtListener opinion 9961630","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT","extracted_reporter_citation":"218 S.W.3d 395","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: equally and each party will receive $766.32 per month. Commencing July 1, 2014, the Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of $766.32 per month representing her portion of his military retirement. He shall continue to do so until such time as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order has been entered and the Wife has begun receiving those benefits directly from the military. On February 24, 2023, Wife filed a pro se motion seeking to recover the value of the annual COLA that Husband had been receiving as part of his military retirement benefits.1 In response, Husband argued that the Agreement 1 Wife further asserted that Husband"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ec1072-1505-4509-b09c-3cb703a43501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 F.3d 1332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9962027 Extracted reporter citation: 219 F.3d 1332. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962027 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ec1072-1505-4509-b09c-3cb703a43501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 F.3d 1332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ec1072-1505-4509-b09c-3cb703a43501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 F.3d 1332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: cision, DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and DENY the cross petition for review. BACKGROUND The appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM's reconsideration decision, which found that she had been overpaid FERS survivor annuity benefits because of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which awarded 50% of her late husband's gross monthly annuity to his former spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5. During the processing of the appeal, the agency rescinded the reconsideration decision, and requested that the appeal be dismissed. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal on the ground"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ec1072-1505-4509-b09c-3cb703a43501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 F.3d 1332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: SMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and DENY the cross petition for review. BACKGROUND The appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM's reconsideration decision, which found that she had been overpaid FERS survivor annuity benefits because of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which awarded 50% of her late husband's gross monthly annuity to his former spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5. During the processing of the appeal, the agency rescinded the reconsideration decision, and requested that the appeal be dismissed. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal on the ground"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a1ec1072-1505-4509-b09c-3cb703a43501","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962027-9962027","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962027","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"219 F.3d 1332","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: led a petition for review and the appellant has filed a cross petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed the appeal of the reconsideration decision issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding that the appellant was overpaid in survivor annuity benefits under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). For the reasons discussed 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74690cea-016d-471a-a082-7b6580098769","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9962149 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962149 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74690cea-016d-471a-a082-7b6580098769","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74690cea-016d-471a-a082-7b6580098769","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: oner Toni McKinney appeals the Family Court of Raleigh County's August 15, 2023, order granting Respondent Gary McKinney's motion to require asset division, which sought either an order compelling Ms. McKinney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or in the alternative an order declaring her interest in Mr. McKinney's pension plan waived. The family court concluded that, because Ms. McKinney failed to appear for a status hearing, her interest in the pension proceeds were waived. Mr. McKinney filed a response in favor of the family court's order.1 Ms. McKinney did not file a reply. This Court has"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74690cea-016d-471a-a082-7b6580098769","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962149-9962149","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962149","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: , order granting Respondent Gary McKinney's motion to require asset division, which sought either an order compelling Ms. McKinney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\"QDRO\") or in the alternative an order declaring her interest in Mr. McKinney's pension plan waived. The family court concluded that, because Ms. McKinney failed to appear for a status hearing, her interest in the pension proceeds were waived. Mr. McKinney filed a response in favor of the family court's order.1 Ms. McKinney did not file a reply. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2022). Af"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e50b875e-d79b-4d5b-a5a7-d9bddb79a172","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962162","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9962162 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962162 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e50b875e-d79b-4d5b-a5a7-d9bddb79a172","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962162","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e50b875e-d79b-4d5b-a5a7-d9bddb79a172","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962162","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on August 14, 2023. Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parties will alternate parenting time with a week-on/week-off schedule, with exchanges every Friday at 4:00. 4."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e50b875e-d79b-4d5b-a5a7-d9bddb79a172","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962162","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parties will alternate parenting time with a week-on/week-off schedule, with exchanges every Friday at 4:00. 4. The children will spe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e50b875e-d79b-4d5b-a5a7-d9bddb79a172","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962162-9962162","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962162","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ns of law, but the family court chose to adopt Husband's and incorporated them into the final divorce order, which was entered on August 14, 2023. Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parti"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9962341 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962341 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s a limited exception to Rule 1:1. Code § 20-107.3(K) permits the circuit court to enter orders \"necessary to effectuate and enforce any order\" entered pursuant to that code section. Under this exception, a court retains jurisdiction to enter or maintain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of the 21 days. Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75 (2000). That order, however, \"must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'\" Id. (quoting Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 798 (1994)). As explained above, the MSA, as incorporated into the divorce decree,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ent reached by the parties as to the division of all retirement accounts and in accordance with the requirements of each plan.\" On May 19, 2022, the parties executed a MSA dividing their assets. Paragraph 17 sets out the parties' agreement relating to the retirement accounts and pensions as follows: By Consent Order Regarding Retirement Assets (Weimer, C.) (hereinafter referred to as \"Consent Order\") entered on March 8, 2022, in the Divorce Action, the Parties reached an agreement as to the division of the marital portions of their respective retirement accounts referenced on Exhibits \"1\" and \"2\" of the Consent Order.[4"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f), for appellant. Jeff Evan Lowinger (Cheryl M. New; Melissa L. Schefkind; New & Lowinger, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellant David Renberg (\"husband\")1 appeals the circuit court's entry of a qualifying court order (\"QCO\") dividing his military pension. He argues that the circuit court erred entering the QCO because the QCO required him to list Julia Renberg (\"wife\") as the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (\"SBP\") connected to his military pension in contravention of the terms of the parties' marital settlement agreement (\"MSA\") and the divorce decree. He also argues that the circuit court"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a95c3abd-2fba-4b4a-922a-b309ce6971fc","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962341-9962341","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962341","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d exception to Rule 1:1. Code § 20-107.3(K) permits the circuit court to enter orders \"necessary to effectuate and enforce any order\" entered pursuant to that code section. Under this exception, a court retains jurisdiction to enter or maintain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of the 21 days. Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75 (2000). That order, however, \"must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'\" Id. (quoting Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 798 (1994)). As explained above, the MSA, as incorporated into the divorce decree,"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96310523-404a-4f3b-aad2-798a6cb1c94e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962442","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9962442 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962442 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96310523-404a-4f3b-aad2-798a6cb1c94e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962442","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96310523-404a-4f3b-aad2-798a6cb1c94e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962442","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: payment determination was unlawful or improper. 6 See 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (listing the requirements for an entitlement to an annuity supplement); Edney v. Office of Personnel Management, 79 M.S.P.R. 60, ¶ 6 (1998) (explaining that if an applicant is entitled to a retirement benefit, then OPM is obligated to provide the benefit; and, if she is not, OPM is obligated to deny the benefit); see generally Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 416, 434 (1990) (holding that the Government cannot be estopped from denying benefits not otherwise permitted by law, even if the claimant was denied monetary benefits because of hi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"96310523-404a-4f3b-aad2-798a6cb1c94e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9962442-9962442","title":"CourtListener opinion 9962442","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"NUMBER Appellant","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: pouse to receive \"a pro-rata share of [his] gross monthly [FERS] annuity.\" Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 4-7. The appellant received a basic annuity and an annuity supplement. Id. at 8-12. In July 2016, OPM determined that, when a qualifying state court domestic relations order awarded a former spouse a portion of an annuitant's gross monthly annuity, OPM must deduct the apportionment from all monthly annuity payments, including the basic annuity and any annuity supplement, even if the order did not specifically address the annuity supplement. IAF, Tab 6 at 24-25, Tab 11 at 4. OPM applied its policy retroactively and prospectively"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9963458 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: 1 and incorporated by reference. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9963458 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 's] remarriage or cohabitation with an unrelated male tantamount to remarriage. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order. *** IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties work together to complete the final two QDRO to facilitate the division of [Husband's] Lincoln (nka Valic) account and [Husband's] annuity within sixty days of journalization of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that CJFS-OCSS shall release the stay of disbursement and determine based upon the newly modified spousal support order how the monies currently on hold shall be d"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ge of 66 and 10 months for a total annual income of $31,000. *** [Husband's] approximate retirement income is anticipated at $63,700 from his prior employment, which seems low (based upon his actual salary at Akron's Children hospital and his additional retirement plans) and $45,600 from social security for a total of $109,000. Based upon all of these factors, the Court determined that [Wife] receives $2,500 x 12 months for a yearly total of $30,000 as spousal support results in a fair spousal obligation. [Husband's] Motion to Modify Support is granted and, effective February 5, 2019, [Husband] is ordered to pay to"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hearing. The Café is described as the first and only hammock café in the United States. Wife did not know what her salary would be at this start up. The evidence revealed that Wife contributed approximately $635,000 into the Café, including $250,000 from a 401K plan that was transferred to the corporation's business account. According to the testimony, Wife is entitled to receive $513 a month in social security benefits once she turns 67.5. Throughout the marriage, Wife volunteered and was an education advocate for their son. According to Wife, the son was bullied in high school and suffers from anxiety and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3aee458-6bb5-4fcc-9ab7-b19c264393ec","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9963458-9963458","title":"CourtListener opinion 9963458","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1 and incorporated by reference","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: of my retirement there will be a substantial decrease in my income. (Motion, Feb. 5, 2019.) In response, Wife, filed five pro se motions — a motion denying termination, a motion to retroactively increase support payments, a motion to order payment of all property divisions, a motion for accounting, and a motion for discovery sanctions. In June 2019, both parties filed motions to strike and Wife filed a pro se motion to dismiss. The matter proceeded to a hearing before the magistrate on October 3, 2019, and was continued to December 20, 2019. Present at the hearing were Wife, pro se, and Husband, along with his two atto"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9965326 Extracted reporter citation: 379 S.W.3d 267. Docket: equalization efforts. Tex. Gov. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9965326 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t, § Appeal from v. § 365th District Court of HAL FRANK BOWLES, § of Maverick County, Texas Appellee. § (TC# 18-05-35711-MCVAJA) MEMORANDUM OPINION In six issues, Cynthia Paola Bowles appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), challenging the order as void. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the QDRO, we reverse and render judgment declaring the QDRO void as a matter of law. BACKGROUND After about nine years of marriage to Hal Frank Bowles, Cynthia filed for divorce in the 365th District Court of Maverick County. 1 The trial court entered th"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 1 rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 40l(k) plan, existing by reason of the Petitioner's past, present, or future employment: LESS THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($10.000.00) from CYNTHIA PAOLA BOWLES Teacher's Retirement System, which will be paid to HAL FRANK BOWLES. The trial court likewise awarded to Hal: The su"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 1 rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 40l(k) plan, existing by reason of the Petitioner's past, present, or future employment: LESS THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($10.000.00) from CYNTHIA PAOLA BOWLES Teacher's Retirement System, which will be paid to HAL FRANK BOWLES. The trial court likewise awarded to Hal: The sum of TEN THOUSAND DOL"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4dd6943f-3a4a-4785-9bed-df078f7ca742","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965326-9965326","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965326","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"equalization efforts. Tex. Gov","extracted_reporter_citation":"379 S.W.3d 267","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: motions in the trial court. On June 3, 2019, Hal sought a QDRO by filing a proposed order into the parties' divorce case but did not serve it on Cynthia. Nonetheless, the trial court signed and entered the order on June 7. The order designated Hal as the alternate payee of Cynthia's Teacher Retirement System (TRS) plan to receive a portion of her benefits under the divorce decree. It also contained a special instruction, stating that Hal was not to \"receive more than a total of $10,000.00 plus interest, calculated from the end date of division to the date of distribution to the Alternate Payee begins . . . .\" Cynthia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a44e4171-db27-4eb5-a8f8-bff3169a364b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9965580 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Breslow. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9965580 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a44e4171-db27-4eb5-a8f8-bff3169a364b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a44e4171-db27-4eb5-a8f8-bff3169a364b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: topped paying the premiums on the life-insurance policies he was required to maintain. The other petition pertained to the transfer of Jaqueline's portion of Beau's retirement accounts. It alleged not only that Beau had failed to take any action to have the qualified domestic relations orders prepared but that the accounts had been liquidated without notice to Jacqueline by his former employer, United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto), which is a company owned in part by Beau along with his brother and his father. Beau filed responses in which he blamed his failure to make support payments on the loss of his job, denied being requi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a44e4171-db27-4eb5-a8f8-bff3169a364b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sal support, as required by the parties' premarital agreement, (3) make monthly payments of $100,000 to pay down the mortgage on Jacqueline's home, (4) maintain $10,000,000 in life insurance, and (5) transfer to Jacqueline 50% of the marital portion of two retirement accounts that were in Beau's name. To facilitate the transfer of the retirement accounts, the dissolution judgment named an attorney who would prepare qualified domestic relations orders (see 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2018)) and directed Beau to furnish that attorney with any documents she requested. ¶5 Three years later, in April 2023, Jacqueline filed a pair of pet"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a44e4171-db27-4eb5-a8f8-bff3169a364b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9965580-9965580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9965580","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in life insurance, and (5) transfer to Jacqueline 50% of the marital portion of two retirement accounts that were in Beau's name. To facilitate the transfer of the retirement accounts, the dissolution judgment named an attorney who would prepare qualified domestic relations orders (see 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2018)) and directed Beau to furnish that attorney with any documents she requested. ¶5 Three years later, in April 2023, Jacqueline filed a pair of petitions seeking rules to show cause why Beau should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the dissolution judgment. One petition involved Beau's ongoing financial ob"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"205a9635-3136-4c71-8bc2-8dd5baa3029e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9967252 Docket: 30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9967252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"205a9635-3136-4c71-8bc2-8dd5baa3029e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"205a9635-3136-4c71-8bc2-8dd5baa3029e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967252-9967252","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967252","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of child support, or (2) the judgment states that there is no just reason for delay and that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine any issues that remain. Accordingly, a divorce decree is a final, appealable order, regardless of whether it calls for a QDRO that has not yet issued; the QDRO merely implements the divorce decree.\"). {¶7} Accordingly, Wife's sole assignment of error is overruled. APPEAL-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT FINDING A DE FACTO TERMINATION DATE OF THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE. {¶8} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court abuse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ded6e2b1-5de1-4cf4-bb7d-96424e9c0b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9967472 Docket: 30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9967472 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ded6e2b1-5de1-4cf4-bb7d-96424e9c0b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ded6e2b1-5de1-4cf4-bb7d-96424e9c0b2a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9967472-9967472","title":"CourtListener opinion 9967472","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of child support, or (2) the judgment states that there is no just reason for delay and that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine any issues that remain. Accordingly, a divorce decree is a final, appealable order, regardless of whether it calls for a QDRO that has not yet issued; the QDRO merely implements the divorce decree.\"). {¶7} Accordingly, Wife's sole assignment of error is overruled. APPEAL-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT FINDING A DE FACTO TERMINATION DATE OF THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE. {¶8} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court abuse"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9972526 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ney fees. The circuit court ordered husband to pay the pension arrears and attorney fees \"not later than 14 days after the closing on the sale of\" certain real estate, \"or January 10, 2023, whichever first occurs.\" The circuit court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order and a final order of divorce, which incorporated the marital agreement and the \"Memorandum Opinion and Order.\"3 Husband moved to reconsider the ruling regarding his pension, which the circuit court denied based on a lack of jurisdiction.4 Husband timely noted his appeal to this Court. Thereafter, on January 10, 2023, husband paid the pension arrears a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the coverture fraction should be applied to the individual parts of the pension. He asserted that each subpart was like a different pension plan and had to be divided separately. Husband emphasized that wife was \"only entitled to 50% of the portion of his retirement benefits received between May 24, 1980 to October 6, 2000,\" and not any portion of Parts C or D. Wife, on the other hand, argued that the coverture fraction should be applied to the total monthly annuity. She contends that the numerator of the coverture fraction should be the number of months between the date of marriage, May 24, 1980, and the date in their agre"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Susan M. Butler (ShounBach, on brief), for appellee. Steven E. Vivirito (husband) appeals a final order of divorce, challenging the circuit court's interpretation of the parties' marital agreement and division of his pension benefits. Husband argues that the circuit court failed \"to adhere\" to the terms of the marital agreement when it determined the equitable distribution award for his retirement because the circuit court erroneously calculated Anne Marie Vivirito's (wife) share. He further contends that by using an incorrect formula, the circuit court erred by determi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90ad42ea-b27d-46c7-8301-4b79f11763a5","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972526-9972526","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972526","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The circuit court ordered husband to pay the pension arrears and attorney fees \"not later than 14 days after the closing on the sale of\" certain real estate, \"or January 10, 2023, whichever first occurs.\" The circuit court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order and a final order of divorce, which incorporated the marital agreement and the \"Memorandum Opinion and Order.\"3 Husband moved to reconsider the ruling regarding his pension, which the circuit court denied based on a lack of jurisdiction.4 Husband timely noted his appeal to this Court. Thereafter, on January 10, 2023, husband paid the pension arrears a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9972694 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Figliulo. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972694 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: erly amended the Order to reflect the parties' intent expressed in the unambiguous language of the judgment to award Dawn a percentage of the pension benefit William would actually receive. ¶ 31 In Hall, the court upheld the trial court's modification of a QDRO to reflect the petitioner's interest in all of the respondent's retirement plans and not certain specified plans. In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 166. The court held that the \"petitioner is not seeking to 10 1-23-1161 impose new or different obligations on the parties. Rather, she is attempting to enforce the parties' rights and obligatio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: QUILDRO regarding William's pension. The QUILDRO states it \"is entered to implement a division of the party's [sic] interest in the retirement system.\" The QUILDRO directed the pension plan to pay the alternate payee (Dawn) 50% of the member's (William's) retirement benefit. ¶9 In 2015, William was arrested and charged with perjury, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice connected to his employment as a police officer. William was convicted in 2016 but remained employed until his resignation and retirement in May 2019. William applied for his retirement benefits and initially, the pension plan awarded William a mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e facto motion to modify the judgment because the motion sought to engraft a new responsibility on petitioner; the trial court had jurisdiction to amend the Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Calculation Court Order to reflect the change in petitioner's pension. ¶2 In October 2013, the circuit court of Cook County entered a judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Dawn and William Pruente which incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). William was a Chicago Police officer. The trial court entered a Qualified Illinois 1-23-1161 Domestic Relations Order (QUILDRO) with regard to William's pension and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"648010aa-3a71-4acf-b7d9-54a5d973cd5b","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972694-9972694","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972694","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was","extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: .]\" ¶8 On October 25, 2013, the trial court entered the QUILDRO regarding William's pension. The QUILDRO states it \"is entered to implement a division of the party's [sic] interest in the retirement system.\" The QUILDRO directed the pension plan to pay the alternate payee (Dawn) 50% of the member's (William's) retirement benefit. ¶9 In 2015, William was arrested and charged with perjury, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice connected to his employment as a police officer. William was convicted in 2016 but remained employed until his resignation and retirement in May 2019. William applied for his retirement be"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9972944 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LONNIE DALE NYE AND HEATHER MARIE NYE Upon the Petition of LONNIE DALE NYE. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 23-0350. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972944 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Mr. Peabody and Sherman may have had the luxury of the \"wayback machine,\" but that doesn't mean the courts can revisit decrees due to the supreme court's clarification. The amended 5 decree herein clearly sets forth the parties' intent. Furthermore, a QDRO was provided to the court as instructed. The marital property order, signed by the attorneys for both parties, identifies [Heather] as an alternate payee. The following language is included in the order prepared by [Lonnie]'s attorney: 1. The Alternate Payee is awarded a dollar amount of the monthly pension from the System to which the Member is otherw"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit are income and not property and thus not subject to equitable division because they replace income that an individual would have earned if not for an injury causing the disability.\" According to Lonnie, \"as [his] retirement account is a benefit [he] earned under [c]hapter 411, it is now classified as income and therefore no longer subject to distribution.\" Following a hearing, the district court entered an order denying Lonnie's petition for modification. Lonnie appeals. II. Standard of Review \"A proceeding to modify . . . a marriage dissolution decree subsequent to its entry"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and Badding and Langholz, JJ. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. Twelve years after a property settlement was reached between Lonnie Nye and Heather Gadue, Lonnie filed a petition for modification of the parties' decree, which awarded Heather half of his retirement pension. Lonnie claimed a change of circumstances stemming from his diagnosis with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and initiation of disability payments from his pension. Lonnie challenged Heather's receipt of half of the monthly disability benefit payments and sought to classify these payments as spousal support subject to modification. The district cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"637c52a3-291b-49ef-b6e6-0d7e3147e972","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9972944-9972944","title":"CourtListener opinion 9972944","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"23-0350","extracted_reporter_citation":"966 N.W.2d 630","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: reme court's clarification. The amended 5 decree herein clearly sets forth the parties' intent. Furthermore, a QDRO was provided to the court as instructed. The marital property order, signed by the attorneys for both parties, identifies [Heather] as an alternate payee. The following language is included in the order prepared by [Lonnie]'s attorney: 1. The Alternate Payee is awarded a dollar amount of the monthly pension from the System to which the Member is otherwise entitled: $501.00. The Alternate Payee shall not be entitled to a proportionate share of any increases in the Member's pension upon entry of this Ord"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9974309 Extracted reporter citation: 783 N.E.2d 623. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9974309 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gation to appellee, Tatiana Dilley (\"Ms. Dilley\"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his \"motion for submission of amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] (\"QDRO\"), nunc pro tun[c].\" {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises one assignment of error, contending the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for amended QDROs. {¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Dilley's assignment of error to be without merit since it is barred by the doctrin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ardon, OH 44024 (Plaintiff- Appellant). Tatiana Dilley, pro se, 8140 Mayfield Road, Apt. B, Chesterland, OH 44026 (Defendant- Appellee). MARY JANE TRAPP, J. {¶1} The instant appeal is another attempt by appellant, William Dilley (\"Mr. Dilley\"), to recoup retirement benefits/disbursements that the trial court allocated upon the termination of Mr. Dilley's spousal support obligation to appellee, Tatiana Dilley (\"Ms. Dilley\"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his \"motion for submission of ame"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: overpaid spousal support but was not entitled to reimbursement. Mr. Dilley failed to object and/or appeal the trial court's judgment entries, and the trial court issued amended QDROs to Citigroup, which administered a Citi Cash Balance Plan and a Shearson Pension, both already in pay status for the parties. {¶6} Mr. Dilley filed several motions, which included a motion requesting reimbursement for spousal support overpayments and amended QDROs because Citigroup requested additional language to effectuate the orders as well as a motion for recoupment. The trial court denied Mr. Dilley's motions and issued amend"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6b52e47e-e5a8-4564-8a78-7e8ca5cc196f","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9974309-9974309","title":"CourtListener opinion 9974309","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"783 N.E.2d 623","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: appellee, Tatiana Dilley (\"Ms. Dilley\"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his \"motion for submission of amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] (\"QDRO\"), nunc pro tun[c].\" {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises one assignment of error, contending the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for amended QDROs. {¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Dilley's assignment of error to be without merit since it is barred by the doctrin"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9975141 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975141 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: at application listed all four retirement options available to the former husband and the benefits, if any, Appellant would receive upon his death. See § 121.091(6)(a)1.–4., Fla. Stat. Appellant's marriage to the former husband was dissolved in 2003 and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the court required that Appellant remain the designated beneficiary for purposes of the former husband's FRS retirement benefit. Under the QDRO, the former husband was prohibited from removing Appellant as the beneficiary of his retirement account during Appellant's lifetime. However, the QDRO did not and could not change benefits accrued"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s from the former husband's retirement date. At this point, section 121.091(6)(a)2. no longer provided for any survivor benefits upon the death of the former husband. The former husband died in 2017, more than nineteen years after his retirement date, and the retirement benefits payable to him expired upon his death. Thus, no retirement benefits were payable to Appellant under section 121.091(6)(a)2. The Department did not misinterpret section 121.091 or any administrative rule promulgated to carry out the statute. See § 120.68(7)(d)–(e), Fla. Stat. The agency final action is therefore AFFIRMED. 2 B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ry ground to set aside the final order, we must affirm. See § 120.68(8), Fla. Stat. (2023). The facts were undisputed. Appellant's former husband retired on July 1, 1998. Under section 121.091(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998), governing payout options for FRS pension plan retirees, the former husband chose option 2 and named Appellant as his beneficiary. Option 2 provides that a monthly retirement benefit will be paid to the retiree for life, but if the retiree dies during the first ten years after retirement, then the beneficiary receives \"the same monthly amount payable for the balance of such 10-year period.\" § 121."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20e42177-8090-41ec-8aea-83f0f483be63","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975141-9975141","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975141","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tion listed all four retirement options available to the former husband and the benefits, if any, Appellant would receive upon his death. See § 121.091(6)(a)1.–4., Fla. Stat. Appellant's marriage to the former husband was dissolved in 2003 and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the court required that Appellant remain the designated beneficiary for purposes of the former husband's FRS retirement benefit. Under the QDRO, the former husband was prohibited from removing Appellant as the beneficiary of his retirement account during Appellant's lifetime. However, the QDRO did not and could not change benefits accrued"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9975580 Extracted case name: S.R. v. S.R. Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975580 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ara] in obtaining a term life insurance policy on [Melvin's] life with [Barbara] named as the owner and sole beneficiary of the policy, in the amount of $1,000,000. (Or the actual amount needed to secure [Barbara's] full payment/benefit amt., as determined by QDRO consultants, including [Barbara's] share of DROP. [Melvin] shall cooperate in the completion of any necessary paperwork, forms, physicals, etc., necessary to secure such term insurance coverage. An application to secure the XXXX $1 million term policy shall be made, by [Melvin], by 3/12/13. The parties shall maintain such term life insurance policy in full"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lvin filed a motion to modify division of property, arguing that \"he has come to learn\" that the property division \"is in accurate [sic] and needs to be modified.\" Melvin further stated that \"there are numerous error [sic] in the calculation of the monthly pension amount, periodic payments amount and lump sum benefit.\" The court denied this motion on December 18, 2014, finding that Melvin failed to \"point the Court to specific errors in the [division of property] or identify any inconsistency between the [division of property] and the parties' [divorce decree and separation] agreement.\" Melvin appealed the \"the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eliminated. Melvin cites no law to support his ask. The one case that he does cite, Karabogias v. Zoltansky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111062, 2023-Ohio-227, ¶ 4, stands for the proposition that the trial court had the authority to issue an amended qualified domestic relations order to clarify the valuation dates of certain marital assets when the original order \"stated that each item of marital property ‘will not be valued as of January 8, 2019,'\" which was the date the divorce trial began. We find that Karabogias has no application to the case at hand. Additionally, this court has consistently held that \"[i]f evidence, authorit"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"061720a3-f286-4f29-a641-7c00e7bf48c6","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975580-9975580","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975580","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance","extracted_reporter_citation":"541 N.E.2d 1028","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: consented to [the] court having continued jurisdiction over the division of retirement assets * * *.\" Neither party appealed these rulings. On June 30, 2014, Melvin filed a motion to modify division of property, arguing that \"he has come to learn\" that the property division \"is in accurate [sic] and needs to be modified.\" Melvin further stated that \"there are numerous error [sic] in the calculation of the monthly pension amount, periodic payments amount and lump sum benefit.\" The court denied this motion on December 18, 2014, finding that Melvin failed to \"point the Court to specific errors in the [division of property] o"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9975711 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS and JEAN AMBER PHIPPS. KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS. Extracted reporter citation: 234 F.3d 415. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975711 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: PS and JEAN AMBER PHIPPS. KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A163407 v. (Contra Costa County JEAN AMBER PHIPPS, Super. Ct. No. D89-07997) Defendant and Respondent. Kenneth James Phipps appeals after the trial court ordered him to sign a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) enforcing the interest of his former spouse, Jean Amber Phipps (aka Greer), in his defined benefit pension plan. He also challenges the court's order requiring him to pay \"any reasonable costs associated with his bad faith refusal to cooperate with preparation of the QDRO.\" Phipps contends the trial court erred by failing to consider equitable defens"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's decision. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Phipps and Greer were married in September 1978. During the marriage, Phipps was a participant in an employment retirement plan called the \"Western State Insulators and Allied Workers' Pension Plan\" (hereafter the pension plan). A. Marital Dissolution Proceedings In November 1989, Phipps petitioned for dissolution of marriage. On October 29, 1991, the trial court issued an order memorializing the parties' \"Stipulation Resolving Some Community Property Issues\" (hereafter the 1991"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . No. D89-07997) Defendant and Respondent. Kenneth James Phipps appeals after the trial court ordered him to sign a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) enforcing the interest of his former spouse, Jean Amber Phipps (aka Greer), in his defined benefit pension plan. He also challenges the court's order requiring him to pay \"any reasonable costs associated with his bad faith refusal to cooperate with preparation of the QDRO.\" Phipps contends the trial court erred by failing to consider equitable defenses of laches and unclean hands, inadequately addressing documentary evidence presented at trial, excluding materia"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8401bc2-3f9b-4484-8238-8acb2c31e613","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9975711-9975711","title":"CourtListener opinion 9975711","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"234 F.3d 415","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: d during the marriage between September 9, 1978, and the date of separation, November 10, 1989, being $351.51 per month.\" The 1991 order expressly called for a QDRO1 to be 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; ERISA), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (Pub.L.No. 98-397 (Aug. 23, 1984) 98 Stat. 1426), \"QDROs are a subset of ‘domestic relations orders' (‘DROs'); DROs are any orders relating ‘to the provision of child support, alimony, or marital property rights to a spouse, 2 \"initially prepared by counsel for [Phipps] and approved by counsel for [Greer]"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9978147 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9978147 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . an equalizing payment of $258,275.00.3 Of the amount owed, $100,000.00 was to be paid in cash within 90 days of the entry of the final divorce decree. The remaining amount was to be paid to Vonda M. from Luke M.'s employer sponsored retirement account via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").4 Luke M. was a physician working at Webster County Memorial Hospital and participated in a retirement plan sponsored by the hospital. Following the entry of the agreed final order in the divorce action on June 29, 2018, Luke M. delivered two checks made out jointly to Vonda M. and his divorce attorney, in the amount of $100,000 for the initial e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Esq. 1 and pay Vonda M. an equalizing payment of $258,275.00.3 Of the amount owed, $100,000.00 was to be paid in cash within 90 days of the entry of the final divorce decree. The remaining amount was to be paid to Vonda M. from Luke M.'s employer sponsored retirement account via a qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\").4 Luke M. was a physician working at Webster County Memorial Hospital and participated in a retirement plan sponsored by the hospital. Following the entry of the agreed final order in the divorce action on June 29, 2018, Luke M. delivered two checks made out jointly to Vonda M. and his divorce attorney, in"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: final order of divorce.\" Jones v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, 235 W. Va. 602, 613, 775 S.E.2d 483, 494 (2015). Our Supreme Court has also held that \"a QDRO is merely the vehicle by which a former spouse seeks to enforce an interest in a pension plan that has already been determined to exist.\" Id. at 617, 775 S.E.2d at 498. We note that the circuit court found that Vonda M. waived her rights under the property settlement agreement when she failed to submit a QDRO within the specific timeframe ordered by the circuit court. In Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W. Va. 463, 467, 766 S.E.2d 410, 414 (2014), a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4c50bf7-eaea-40b3-b4fa-caf270060e4a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978147-9978147","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978147","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: s. 4 A qualified domestic relations order \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.\" See ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B)(i). 5 Luke M. allegedly changed the death beneficiary of his retirement account to Pamela M., his fiancé, on August 23, 2018. Luke M. died less than a month later. 2 On February 27, 2020, Vonda M. filed an amended answer, a counterclaim against the Estate of Luke M., and a third-party complaint against Pamela M. Vonda M. argued in the co"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9978599 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9978599 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 2017 the Plan responded to [Barbara's] counsel that the Plan is covered under ERISA and that the Plan would not and cannot undertake any action without a Domestic Relations Order [(‘DRO')] from a state court which the Plan Administrator determines to be a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')].\" (Id. § 4.) In September 2018, Richard made an election to receive full payment of the present value of his benefits as part of the Plan's 2018 limited time offer to elect a lump sum. (Id. 45.) As part of the requirements for electing a lump sum under the limited time offer, Richard \"submitted a signed and notarized\" spousal waiver and certif"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a result of ERISA preemption and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to the Notice of Removal, on November 3, 2017, Barbara served the Marsh & McLennan Companies Retirement Plan (the \"Plan'\"') with a \"Joinder\" \"seeking to have the purported marital estate's community property interest in the Plan come within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.\" (Notice of Removal § 3.) \"On November 20, 2017 the Plan responded to [Barbara's] counsel that the Plan is covered under ERISA and that the Plan would not and cannot undertake any actio"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: trict courts have repeatedly held that because a nonparty such as Marsh & McLennan is not a \"defendant\" under the removal statute, that nonparty has no right to remove the action. Specifically, in Gross v. Deberadinis, 722 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D. Del. 2010), a pension plan attempted to remove an underlying divorce proceeding after the husband filed a motion in which he sought to vacate the QDRO after his ex- wife died and sought an order requiring the pension plan to ret1mburse him for the payments the plan sent to his ex-wife after her death. See id. at 533. The district court remanded the action sua sponte: \"Even a"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c7b9e8ec-3faa-41bf-80e3-5d74cb9aa915","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9978599-9978599","title":"CourtListener opinion 9978599","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","present_value","preemption"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: Magrath (\"Richard'') pending in the Family Court of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Marsh & McLennan asserts that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction based on both the existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a result of ERISA preemption and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to the Notice of Removal, on November 3, 2017, Barbara served the Marsh & McLennan Companies Retirement Plan (the \"Plan'\"') with a \"Joinder\" \"seeking to have the purported marital estate's community property interest in the Plan come within the jurisdiction of the Family Cou"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9980489 Extracted reporter citation: 376 U.S. 575. Docket: L-23-1091 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9980489 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: any and all retirement assets in her name; that appellee was awarded his 401(k) (with a balance of $27,347.87) and SEP- IRA (with a balance of $69,046.20); and that appellant would receive 40% of appellee's rollover IRA (with a balance of $618, 482.91) by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Debt {¶ 44} The court ruled that appellee would assume responsibility for the three outstanding credit card balances, which totaled $59,019.80. The court further ruled that appellant would be held responsible for any and all debt currently in her name. Personal Property {¶ 45} In dividing up the personal property, the court awarded appellee certa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ellee also testified to the ownership of certain motor vehicles, including a 2018 BMW that he drove, which had a mortgage loan; a 2009 Jeep driven by the parties' son; and a leased 2020 Jeep driven by appellant. 10. {¶ 34} Appellee testified regarding his retirement accounts, including a 401(k), with a balance of $27,347.87; a rollover IRA, with a balance of $618,482.91; and a SEP- IRA, with a balance of $69,046.20. He testified that he was unsure of appellant's retirement accounts or benefits (as she would not produce information), but he believed she had between $10,000 - $15,000. He further testified to the parties' joi"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tal and separate property) in structuring the property division in this matter. {¶ 56} The court restated, with some additional detail, its spousal support/real property award, its division of personal property, its division of debts, and its division of pension plans and retirement accounts. {¶ 57} The court also set forth the process for implementation of the agreement, detailing when and how the parties were to take possession of all items of property to which each was entitled under the terms of the agreement. {¶ 58} It is from this judgment entry that appellant appeals. 16. Assignments of Error {¶ 59}"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f877233a-3ee8-484f-85e3-7072dbc30feb","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9980489-9980489","title":"CourtListener opinion 9980489","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"L-23-1091 Appellee Trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"376 U.S. 575","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ship of certain motor vehicles, including a 2018 BMW that he drove, which had a mortgage loan; a 2009 Jeep driven by the parties' son; and a leased 2020 Jeep driven by appellant. 10. {¶ 34} Appellee testified regarding his retirement accounts, including a 401(k), with a balance of $27,347.87; a rollover IRA, with a balance of $618,482.91; and a SEP- IRA, with a balance of $69,046.20. He testified that he was unsure of appellant's retirement accounts or benefits (as she would not produce information), but he believed she had between $10,000 - $15,000. He further testified to the parties' joint tax filings betwe"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9983388 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9983388 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d by a federal agency, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Id. Plaintiff Natty, who is acting pro se, alleges that TSP negligently disbursed the entirety of the savings in his TSP account to Natty's ex-wife, Mia Lollis, pursuant to an erroneous qualified domestic relations order. See generally dkt. 1. His complaint purports to bring claims for negligence under (1) California Civil Code § 1714 and (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, Pub. L. 79-601. Id. § 5. Plaintiff Natty requests damages in the amount of $160,249.00. Id. 16. He does not seek any other relief. Id. On March 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e Court finds and concludes as follows. Il. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the Court references only facts that are uncontroverted and to which evidentiary objections, if any, have been overruled. Plaintiff, who 1s a retired federal employee, has a retirement account with TSP. Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (\"SUF\"), dkt. 11-1 91. In 1991, plaintiff married Mia Lollis, and they separated in 2010. Id. On September 30, 2013, a final judgment of dissolution of their marriage was filed in the Superior Court of California. Id. 3. This judgment stated that Lollis would receive fifty percent of the value of"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: eral agency, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Id. Plaintiff Natty, who is acting pro se, alleges that TSP negligently disbursed the entirety of the savings in his TSP account to Natty's ex-wife, Mia Lollis, pursuant to an erroneous qualified domestic relations order. See generally dkt. 1. His complaint purports to bring claims for negligence under (1) California Civil Code § 1714 and (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, Pub. L. 79-601. Id. § 5. Plaintiff Natty requests damages in the amount of $160,249.00. Id. 16. He does not seek any other relief. Id. On March 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant t"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4ddd3ee5-bf41-4e26-961c-e2d861d47ad8","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9983388-9983388","title":"CourtListener opinion 9983388","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"477 U.S. 317","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: as overpaid by TSP, which amount to $40,249.75. Id. 4 38. In its Findings and Order, the Superior Court additionally found that plaintiff owed Lollis half of plaintiff's Federal Employee Retirement System (\"FERS\"') plan, which plaintiff had omitted on his community property declaration. Id. 39. Because Lollis owed plaintiff the amount she was overpaid by TSP, the Superior Court found that the amount of the FERS plan that plaintiff owes Lollis is offset by the TSP overpayment plus Lollis' share of another debt. Id. 40. The Findings and Order instructed Lollis to re- submit a QDRO for any remaining amount owed to her for the"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6375ad7-2ae5-4e41-8960-3b6df18bba99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9988343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9988343 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9988343 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6375ad7-2ae5-4e41-8960-3b6df18bba99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9988343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6375ad7-2ae5-4e41-8960-3b6df18bba99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9988343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e and commerce against restraints and monopolies. . . .\" 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a). He argues that Finnerty v. Cowen, 508 F.2d 979 (2nd Cir. 1974), supports his contention that a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving the receipt of retirement benefits. The circumstances of Finnerty, however, are distinguishable. In Finnerty, a widow receiving retirement benefits sought to enjoin, as unconstitutional, the operation of certain sections of the Railroad Retirement Act (\"the Act\") requiring the reduction of annuities to offset earnings of recipients. Id. In this case, Powell does not challenge the const"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a6375ad7-2ae5-4e41-8960-3b6df18bba99","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9988343-9988343","title":"CourtListener opinion 9988343","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the operation of certain sections of the Railroad Retirement Act (\"the Act\") requiring the reduction of annuities to offset earnings of recipients. Id. In this case, Powell does not challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Instead, Powell challenges a domestic relations order of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. Consequently, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, u"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9993775 Extracted reporter citation: 141 S.Ct. 474. Docket: 33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9993775 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sibilities pursuant to ERISA § 105(a), its responsibility for processing pension applications, and its responsibility for deciding first-level benefits appeals.19 Alight was also responsible for performing and auditing pension calculations, complying with qualified domestic relations orders (\"QDROs\") of state courts for the division of pension benefits, and providing retirement counseling to Plan participants.20 Alight laid out the steps for performing pension calculations for the Plan in a \"requirements document.\"21 Alight used a proprietary recordkeeping system called Total Benefits Administration (\"TBA\") to automatically calculate mo"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: HILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00039-SLG et al., Defendants. ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Monte Mabry commenced this action against ConocoPhillips Company and the Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan (together, the \"ConocoPhillips Defendants\"), and Alight Solutions, LLC in state court. On February 19, 2020, the ConocoPhillips Defendants filed a notice of removal.1 On June 5, 2020, Mr. Mabry filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") against all Defendants and state tort claims agai"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court's determination.3 BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Mabry states that he began working for Atlantic Richfield Company (\"ARCO\") in 1980 and began accruing pension benefits under the Atlantic Richfield Retirement Plan (\"ARRP\").4 In 1985, Mr. Mabry transferred to ARCO Alaska and continued accruing ARRP pension benefits.5 By 2001, Phillips Petroleum Company (\"Phillips\") acquired ARCO Alaska.6 Mr. Mabry began working for Phillips at that time and became a participant in the Phillips Retirement Income Plan.7 In 2003"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6a0b6bd3-b3a5-4c10-ab41-2843d8b5757a","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993775-9993775","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993775","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants","extracted_reporter_citation":"141 S.Ct. 474","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ), and Alight Solutions, LLC in state court. On February 19, 2020, the ConocoPhillips Defendants filed a notice of removal.1 On June 5, 2020, Mr. Mabry filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") against all Defendants and state tort claims against Alight.2 Before the Court at Docket 33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff responded in opposition at Docket 39, to which the ConocoPhillips Defendants replied at Docket 43. Also before the 1 Docket 1. 2 Docket 16; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9993904 Extracted reporter citation: 226 F.3d 1042. Docket: 57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9993904 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: igent misrepresentation because Mr. Mabry \"cannot allege justifiable reliance as a matter of law.\"66 Alight asserts that Mr. Mabry's reliance was not justifiable because he knew that a large portion of his pension would go to the alternate payee under the qualified domestic relations order (\"QDRO\"), and because the pension benefit estimates contained express disclaimers.67 Mr. Mabry maintains that he has plausibly pleaded that his reliance on Alight's alleged misrepresentations was reasonable for two reasons: first, because ConocoPhillips sent him two letters telling him that \"the alternate payee's share would be segregated as a separa"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Reconsideration of the Court's order at Docket 49. Defendant Alight Solutions LLC (\"Alight\") responded at Docket 60, to which Plaintiff replied at Docket 63. Defendants ConocoPhillips Co. (\"ConocoPhillips\") and the Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan (\"Benefits Committee\") (collectively, \"ConocoPhillips Defendants\") responded at Docket 62, to which Plaintiff replied at Docket 64. BACKGROUND The factual allegations in this case are set forth in detail in the Court's January 19, 2021 order at Docket 49, and the Court assumes familiarity here. In brief, Mr. Mabry's allegations arise from a dispute"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lied at Docket 64. BACKGROUND The factual allegations in this case are set forth in detail in the Court's January 19, 2021 order at Docket 49, and the Court assumes familiarity here. In brief, Mr. Mabry's allegations arise from a dispute regarding his pension benefits. Specifically, Mr. Mabry alleges that Alight provided him with vastly overstated pension benefit estimates through its website while serving as a third-party administrator for the Benefits Committee, which Mr. Mabry relied on to his detriment. Mr. Mabry commenced this action against the ConocoPhillips Defendants and Alight, alleging violation"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b2cb1ad-1c41-4e6b-8131-54dfd5c217a1","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9993904-9993904","title":"CourtListener opinion 9993904","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry","extracted_reporter_citation":"226 F.3d 1042","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: ird-party administrator for the Benefits Committee, which Mr. Mabry relied on to his detriment. Mr. Mabry commenced this action against the ConocoPhillips Defendants and Alight, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\") against all defendants as well as state law tort claims against Alight.1 In its January 19, 2021 order, the Court dismissed Mr. Mabry's breach of fiduciary duty claims against Alight after determining that \"the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege that Alight was acting as a fiduciary when it provided Mr. Mabry with pension estimates and sta"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"CourtListener opinion 9994017 Extracted reporter citation: 994 F.3d 1020. Docket: 79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9994017 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: retion or control to constitute a fiduciary function.\"20 Accordingly, by the terms of his own SAC, Mr. Mabry's fiduciary duty claim against the Benefits Committee is foreclosed by Bafford. Second, Mr. Mabry attempts to recast his fiduciary duty claim as a QDRO noncompliance claim, asserting that \"the problem was not with the system's application of the . . . formula, but with a failure to segregate the alternate payee's benefit as required by the QDRO and promised in the December 2008 letters.\"21 But, as the Court previously discussed, \"Mr. Mabry is not asserting a claim for QDRO noncompliance. Instead, Mr."}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00039-SLG et al., Defendants. ORDER RE DEFENDANT BENEFIT COMMITTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Before the Court at Docket 79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan's (the \"Benefits Committee\") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (\"SAC\"). Plaintiff Monte Mabry responded in opposition at Docket 81. The Benefits Committee replied at Docket 83. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court's determination. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The factual allegations and"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e provided grossly exaggerated benefit estimates through a third-party administrator's website based on a calculation error.12 The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the third- party administrator failed because \"calculation of pension benefits is a ministerial function that does not have a fiduciary duty attached to it.\"13 Therefore, the plan 10 For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits amendment with the opposing party's written consent. Under Mr. Mabry's interpretation of Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), any time an opposing party consents to an amended pleading, it e"}
{"id":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3827de50-b0ec-46d1-8fa7-e5973483df7e","slug":"courtlistener-opinion-9994017-9994017","title":"CourtListener opinion 9994017","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":null,"source_host":null,"source_opinion_id":null,"extracted_docket_number":"79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi","extracted_reporter_citation":"994 F.3d 1020","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":null,"citation_year":null,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: omplaint, which Mr. Mabry filed on August 13, 2021 at Docket 74. Mr. Mabry's SAC is substantially the same as his first amended complaint, with the addition of allegations related to Mr. Mabry's claim against the Benefits Committee for alleged violation of ERISA § 105 and removal of the second claim for relief against Defendant Alight Solutions LLC (\"Alight\"), which was previously dismissed by the Court.1 The Benefits Committee now moves to dismiss the claims alleged in the SAC. The legal standard for evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was set forth in this Court's order on the first motion to dismiss and is"}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi Date: 1995-04-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: er all of his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible f"}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible for the payment of the Energy Research Corporation loan, and the wife shall be responsible for th"}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): hall be the sole and exclusive property of the wife. 11. The joint bank account shall be divided equally. 12. The husband shall transfer all of his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14."}
{"id":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b2baf7-9bba-4446-b8a6-05d1528e483d","slug":"crystal-nami-chi-v-chang-vum-chi-3364183","title":"Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368643/nami-chi-v-vum-chi-no-31-29-70-apr-18-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368643","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-18","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible f"}
{"id":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5a5118-6a38-4caf-a834-329f43956946","slug":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429","title":"Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357898/breton-v-breton-no-0123533-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357898","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton. Date: 2002-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5a5118-6a38-4caf-a834-329f43956946","slug":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429","title":"Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357898/breton-v-breton-no-0123533-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357898","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5a5118-6a38-4caf-a834-329f43956946","slug":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429","title":"Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357898/breton-v-breton-no-0123533-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357898","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he shall be responsible for all expenses related to said property including the mortgage payments. In the event of her failure to pay same, said expenses, etc., shall be deducted from her portion of the net proceeds. 4. The defendant shall receive by way of QDRO one half of plaintiff's Electric Boat pension. The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare the necessary documents. 5. The plaintiff shall keep the 1977 Ford and 1999 Mercury subject to any loans thereon. He shall remove the defendant's name from any loans thereon and keep the defendant harmless therefrom. The defendant shall execute any documents necessary to"}
{"id":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5e5a5118-6a38-4caf-a834-329f43956946","slug":"daniel-breton-v-lyn-m-breton-3353429","title":"Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357898/breton-v-breton-no-0123533-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357898","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: laintiff has been able to fulfill his employment at Beit Brothers where he is produce manager and has a net weekly income of $413.40. Prior to his employment with Beit Brothers, the plaintiff was employed at the Electric Boat for about 19 years and earned a pension, which plaintiff will start receiving at age 65. No testimony was offered as to the value of said pension. The defendant, who was born November 20, 1958, is in good health. She was employed about 20% of her married life. Presently she is employed at Foxwood Casino as a guest room attendant and has a net weekly income of $323.39 and earns tips of about $50"}
{"id":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd5bb01f-eae4-4f5e-b6e1-d150eafd6b98","slug":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239","title":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370699/pasqualini-v-pasqualini-no-fa96-05-58-42-feb-9-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-09","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini Date: 1998-02-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd5bb01f-eae4-4f5e-b6e1-d150eafd6b98","slug":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239","title":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370699/pasqualini-v-pasqualini-no-fa96-05-58-42-feb-9-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-09","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd5bb01f-eae4-4f5e-b6e1-d150eafd6b98","slug":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239","title":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370699/pasqualini-v-pasqualini-no-fa96-05-58-42-feb-9-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-09","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the defendant named as irrevocable beneficiary thereon, for so long as the plaintiff has an obligation for alimony. This provision shall be modifiable. Pension 1. The defendant shall be entitled to 25% of the plaintiff's pension at Sikorsky by means of a QDRO. This represents the benefits which have accrued to the pension during the course of the marriage. COPPETO, J."}
{"id":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd5bb01f-eae4-4f5e-b6e1-d150eafd6b98","slug":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239","title":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370699/pasqualini-v-pasqualini-no-fa96-05-58-42-feb-9-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-09","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ice. The jointly owned marital home is valued between $120,000 to $125,000 and has a mortgage of approximately $78,000. The plaintiff has savings of approximately $22,408; a 401(k) of $31,000 ($11,000 of which was accumulated prior to the marriage) 11 and a pension. The defendant withdrew $9,000 from the joint savings account in the fall of 1996 and used this money to live on. The defendant desires to remain in the marital home and feels she will be able to be gainfully employed after a period of time. CT Page 2397 Unfortunately the parties were unable to resolve their marital difficulties. The court declines to ass"}
{"id":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd5bb01f-eae4-4f5e-b6e1-d150eafd6b98","slug":"daniel-pasqualini-v-regina-pasqualini-3366239","title":"Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370699/pasqualini-v-pasqualini-no-fa96-05-58-42-feb-9-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-09","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): $20,000 and the plaintiff contributed approximately $23,000 towards the purchase price. The jointly owned marital home is valued between $120,000 to $125,000 and has a mortgage of approximately $78,000. The plaintiff has savings of approximately $22,408; a 401(k) of $31,000 ($11,000 of which was accumulated prior to the marriage) 11 and a pension. The defendant withdrew $9,000 from the joint savings account in the fall of 1996 and used this money to live on. The defendant desires to remain in the marital home and feels she will be able to be gainfully employed after a period of time. CT Page 2397 Unfortunately the"}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski Date: 1999-06-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bilities relating to this vehicle. CT Page 6954 The husband shall transfer to the wife $10,000 of his pension as identified on the husband's financial affidavit. This transfer shall be joint with a right of survivorship and shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or any other method required by the administrator of the pension plan. Neither party has made a claim regarding any other item of personal property. Except as otherwise previously provided, the parties shall retain the property as listed on their respective financial affidavits or presently in their possession. 7. Debt divisions. The joint liabilities s"}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . The husband lists personal, weekly expenses of approximately $435 (excluding the pendente lite alimony and support). He has liabilities totaling $26,615 and $2,620 of these liabilities he lists as joint liabilities. According to his financial affidavit, his retirement plan has a value of about $46,990. He also has other, relatively small personal assets as listed on his financial affidavit. The parties' marital residence on Lilac Court, Cheshire, Connecticut was purchased in 1997 for $194,000. The mortgage on the property has an outstanding balance of about $186,000. The parties disagree about the value of this house, and e"}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as in the 1991 Ford Taurus. The husband shall own the 1991 Ford Taurus to the exclusion of the wife and he shall pay and hold her harmless regarding all liabilities relating to this vehicle. CT Page 6954 The husband shall transfer to the wife $10,000 of his pension as identified on the husband's financial affidavit. This transfer shall be joint with a right of survivorship and shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or any other method required by the administrator of the pension plan. Neither party has made a claim regarding any other item of personal property. Except as otherwise previ"}
{"id":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c98e51da-ee6f-402a-8dc8-0c617ec28af8","slug":"daria-duglenski-v-peter-duglenski-3362962","title":"Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367423/duglenski-v-duglenski-no-fa98-0415601-jun-10-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367423","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-10","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: elating to this vehicle. CT Page 6954 The husband shall transfer to the wife $10,000 of his pension as identified on the husband's financial affidavit. This transfer shall be joint with a right of survivorship and shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or any other method required by the administrator of the pension plan. Neither party has made a claim regarding any other item of personal property. Except as otherwise previously provided, the parties shall retain the property as listed on their respective financial affidavits or presently in their possession. 7. Debt divisions. The joint liabilities s"}
{"id":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e114db16-7203-4885-b4d7-01a10f0dc717","slug":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354","title":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335850/derisi-v-derisi-no-fa-99-0429028s-may-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi. Date: 2000-05-26. Machine-draft public headnote: David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e114db16-7203-4885-b4d7-01a10f0dc717","slug":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354","title":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335850/derisi-v-derisi-no-fa-99-0429028s-may-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e114db16-7203-4885-b4d7-01a10f0dc717","slug":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354","title":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335850/derisi-v-derisi-no-fa-99-0429028s-may-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: defendant wife is to pay those liabilities listed on her financial affidavit owed to M/C Merchant Bank CT Page 6378 and First USA. The plaintiff husband shall convey one half of the value of his pension as of May, 9, 2000 to the defendant wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff husband is to pay the sum of $100.00 per week as alimony to the defendant wife. Said alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage or cohabitation, as defined by statute, of the defendant wife, or May 9, 2010, whichever shall occur first. The plaintiff shall quit claim all his right title and interest in the real"}
{"id":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e114db16-7203-4885-b4d7-01a10f0dc717","slug":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354","title":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335850/derisi-v-derisi-no-fa-99-0429028s-may-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ted on his financial affidavit owed to Discover and Sears. The defendant wife is to pay those liabilities listed on her financial affidavit owed to M/C Merchant Bank CT Page 6378 and First USA. The plaintiff husband shall convey one half of the value of his pension as of May, 9, 2000 to the defendant wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff husband is to pay the sum of $100.00 per week as alimony to the defendant wife. Said alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage or cohabitation, as defined by statute, of the defendant wife, or May 9, 2010, whichever shall o"}
{"id":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e114db16-7203-4885-b4d7-01a10f0dc717","slug":"david-derisi-v-sheila-t-derisi-3331354","title":"David Derisi v. Sheila T. Derisi.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335850/derisi-v-derisi-no-fa-99-0429028s-may-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: wife is to pay those liabilities listed on her financial affidavit owed to M/C Merchant Bank CT Page 6378 and First USA. The plaintiff husband shall convey one half of the value of his pension as of May, 9, 2000 to the defendant wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff husband is to pay the sum of $100.00 per week as alimony to the defendant wife. Said alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the remarriage or cohabitation, as defined by statute, of the defendant wife, or May 9, 2010, whichever shall occur first. The plaintiff shall quit claim all his right title and interest in the real"}
{"id":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a55f3a-246e-480c-8e47-19c794eef893","slug":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722","title":"David Glover v. Jean Glover","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348205/glover-v-glover-no-0540221-jun-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348205","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"David Glover v. Jean Glover Date: 1999-06-16. Machine-draft public headnote: David Glover v. Jean Glover is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a55f3a-246e-480c-8e47-19c794eef893","slug":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722","title":"David Glover v. Jean Glover","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348205/glover-v-glover-no-0540221-jun-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348205","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a55f3a-246e-480c-8e47-19c794eef893","slug":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722","title":"David Glover v. Jean Glover","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348205/glover-v-glover-no-0540221-jun-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348205","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: until Derek turns 19 or graduates from high school. Thereafter, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant $75 per week alimony for eight years. Said alimony is modifiable as to amount but not as to term. 2. Plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of QDRO 40% of his Navy pension. 3. The plaintiff shall put the defendant as surviving beneficiary of his Navy pension. 4. Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Vasington, JTR"}
{"id":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"91a55f3a-246e-480c-8e47-19c794eef893","slug":"david-glover-v-jean-glover-3343722","title":"David Glover v. Jean Glover","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348205/glover-v-glover-no-0540221-jun-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348205","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: OR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On April 3, 1997, Austin, J. granted the parties a decree dissolving their marriage. The court did not award defendant any alimony or a portion of plaintiff's Navy pension. Since defendant claims that she was unaware of the hearing of April 3, 1997 and was not present because of plaintiff's actions, she filed a motion to open and modify the judgment. After a hearing, Austin, J. granted the defendant's motion. The court found that defendant failed to appear at the hearing of the dissolution of the marriage on April 3, 1997 b"}
{"id":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086750ae-f1ed-4347-b65c-11f4db1fc2f5","slug":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511","title":"David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357979/allen-v-allen-no-fa-98-0087023-s-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357979","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen Date: 1999-07-28. Machine-draft public headnote: David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086750ae-f1ed-4347-b65c-11f4db1fc2f5","slug":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511","title":"David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357979/allen-v-allen-no-fa-98-0087023-s-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357979","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086750ae-f1ed-4347-b65c-11f4db1fc2f5","slug":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511","title":"David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357979/allen-v-allen-no-fa-98-0087023-s-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357979","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n. Defendant shall be nominated beneficiary of any pre-retirement survivor death benefits. Said obligation shall become a claim against plaintiffs estate in the event he fails to comply with said obligation. Said pension benefits shall be assigned by way of a QDRO, and the court will retain continuing jurisdiction over this matter to effectuate said transfer. The defendant shall receive $30,000.00 gross from the plaintiffs savings plan with his employer, plus any interest/performance thereon on said amount that accrues from the CT Page 9835 date of final decree to distribution. Said sums shall be transferred to the"}
{"id":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"086750ae-f1ed-4347-b65c-11f4db1fc2f5","slug":"david-r-allen-v-sonia-s-allen-3353511","title":"David R. Allen v. Sonia S. Allen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357979/allen-v-allen-no-fa-98-0087023-s-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357979","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hall be the sole owner of the 1997 Camper Trailer and will be responsible for the land lease. The defendant shall be the sole owner of the 1993 Ford Taurus and be responsible for all expenses therewith. The defendant shall receive one-half of the plaintiffs pension benefits as they have accrued of the date of the final dissolution, plus any interest and performance thereon which accrues from said dissolution until distribution. Defendant shall be nominated beneficiary of any pre-retirement survivor death benefits. Said obligation shall become a claim against plaintiffs estate in the event he fails to comply with said"}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn Date: 1998-05-14. Machine-draft public headnote: David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ) plan. The husband shall retain as his sole property his Sheet Metal Works #40 annuity. The other pension or retirement plans listed as deferred compensation plans on the parties' financial statements shall each be divided equally between the parties through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of the plans. 2. The wife shall retain as her sole property the 1990 Mercury Cougar and the husband shall transfer his interest in this vehicle to her. The wife shall also retain as her sole property the 1994 Ford Escort which is solely in her name. The husband shall retain as his sole property the 1995 F"}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nt so that such a payment may be indirectly acquired. 2. Personal Property and Liabilities 1. The wife shall retain as her sole property her 401(k) plan. The husband shall retain as his sole property his Sheet Metal Works #40 annuity. The other pension or retirement plans listed as deferred compensation plans on the parties' financial statements shall each be divided equally between the parties through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of the plans. 2. The wife shall retain as her sole property the 1990 Mercury Cougar and the husband shall transfer his interest in this v"}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ty settlement so that such a payment may be indirectly acquired. 2. Personal Property and Liabilities 1. The wife shall retain as her sole property her 401(k) plan. The husband shall retain as his sole property his Sheet Metal Works #40 annuity. The other pension or retirement plans listed as deferred compensation plans on the parties' financial statements shall each be divided equally between the parties through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of the plans. 2. The wife shall retain as her sole property the 1990 Mercury Cougar and the husband shall transfer his"}
{"id":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"700aedbf-a68b-4cb7-b392-b86591a9cb72","slug":"david-russell-gunn-v-mary-ann-gunn-3330413","title":"David Russell Gunn v. Mary Ann Gunn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334909/gunn-v-gunn-no-fa-96-0391530-s-may-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334909","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): g an order requiring a party to pay post-majority child support and the court declines to order a property settlement so that such a payment may be indirectly acquired. 2. Personal Property and Liabilities 1. The wife shall retain as her sole property her 401(k) plan. The husband shall retain as his sole property his Sheet Metal Works #40 annuity. The other pension or retirement plans listed as deferred compensation plans on the parties' financial statements shall each be divided equally between the parties through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of the plans."}
{"id":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a80aa8fd-f406-41cd-9cea-7a8e9b6bb170","slug":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912","title":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339403/gonzales-v-gonzalez-no-fa-99-035-96-16-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339403","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez Date: 1999-07-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a80aa8fd-f406-41cd-9cea-7a8e9b6bb170","slug":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912","title":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339403/gonzales-v-gonzalez-no-fa-99-035-96-16-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339403","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a80aa8fd-f406-41cd-9cea-7a8e9b6bb170","slug":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912","title":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339403/gonzales-v-gonzalez-no-fa-99-035-96-16-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339403","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ding loan obligation which she shall assume and save the Husband harmless. The Husband shall retain the 1979 Buick. All bank accounts shall remain in the name of the party owning same. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) a 50% interest in his vested pension benefit at Normag Inc. represented to be $437.14 per month at age 65. The Husband shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at his expense and file same with the court within 90 days from date. LIABILITIES The Husband shall assume all the obligations shown on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall assume the J."}
{"id":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a80aa8fd-f406-41cd-9cea-7a8e9b6bb170","slug":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912","title":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339403/gonzales-v-gonzalez-no-fa-99-035-96-16-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339403","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ss. The Husband shall retain the 1979 Buick. All bank accounts shall remain in the name of the party owning same. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) a 50% interest in his vested pension benefit at Normag Inc. represented to be $437.14 per month at age 65. The Husband shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at his expense and file same with the court within 90 days from date. LIABILITIES The Husband shall assume all the obligations shown on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall assume the J.C. Penny and Chase Visa obligations shown on"}
{"id":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a80aa8fd-f406-41cd-9cea-7a8e9b6bb170","slug":"dawn-b-gonzales-v-cirilo-gonzalez-3334912","title":"Dawn B. Gonzales v. Cirilo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339403/gonzales-v-gonzalez-no-fa-99-035-96-16-jul-28-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339403","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-28","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: obligation which she shall assume and save the Husband harmless. The Husband shall retain the 1979 Buick. All bank accounts shall remain in the name of the party owning same. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) a 50% interest in his vested pension benefit at Normag Inc. represented to be $437.14 per month at age 65. The Husband shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at his expense and file same with the court within 90 days from date. LIABILITIES The Husband shall assume all the obligations shown on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall assume the J."}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott Docket: established that the interests of justice were not. Date: 1999-11-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: free and clear of any claims by the other. The wife shall retain her Aetna deferred compensation account and the husband shall retain his 401-k account free and clear of any claims by the other. The wife shall receive 50% of the husband's pension through a qualified domestic relations order or such other document consistent with the terms of the plan. The plaintiffs counsel shall prepare this order for the court's review and consideration. Within fourteen days from the date of this judgment, the wife shall transfer to the husband the Volvo. The wife shall transfer to the husband the Plymouth Voyager when the wife obtains a replacement vehicl"}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nk accounts containing $1,446 and stock valued at $2517. Although the husband does not list any deferred compensation accounts on his financial affidavit, the evidence establishes that through his employment he has a 401-k having a value of about $2,170 and a pension having an annual estimated payment of $5,192. The evidence establishes that the irretrievable breakdown of the parties' marriage was caused by the husband's excessive use of alcohol. The husband has an alcohol problem which he denies and has failed fully to appreciate or address. ORDERS 1. Dissolution of marriage. The parties' marriage is hereby dissol"}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: clear of any claims by the other. The wife shall retain her Aetna deferred compensation account and the husband shall retain his 401-k account free and clear of any claims by the other. The wife shall receive 50% of the husband's pension through a qualified domestic relations order or such other document consistent with the terms of the plan. The plaintiffs counsel shall prepare this order for the court's review and consideration. Within fourteen days from the date of this judgment, the wife shall transfer to the husband the Volvo. The wife shall transfer to the husband the Plymouth Voyager when the wife obtains a replacement vehicl"}
{"id":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9ae9efd3-869f-4c1f-ac4a-362900c1de05","slug":"deborah-elliott-v-john-elliott-3364546","title":"Deborah Elliott v. John Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369006/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa-98-0415733-s-nov-24-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369006","extracted_docket_number":"established that the interests of justice were not","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-11-24","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: unt of $50 a week for seven years. This alimony shall terminate upon the death of either party, the wife's remarriage or the wife's cohabitation as defined by statute. This alimony shall be paid through a wage withholding in the manner authorized by law. 7. Property divisions. The husband shall quitclaim all his right, title and interest in the marital residence to the wife within fourteen days from the date of the judgment. The wife shall thereafter indemnify and hold the husband harmless as to any and all expenses, costs, repairs, or taxes associated with said residence. If the husband fails to execute the quitclaim deed with"}
{"id":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9f4db3b-79f6-4b2f-b5e7-5113cc0c170e","slug":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161","title":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374618/narowski-v-narowski-no-fa00-0071932s-may-17-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374618","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-17","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261 Date: 2002-05-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9f4db3b-79f6-4b2f-b5e7-5113cc0c170e","slug":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161","title":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374618/narowski-v-narowski-no-fa00-0071932s-may-17-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374618","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-17","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9f4db3b-79f6-4b2f-b5e7-5113cc0c170e","slug":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161","title":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374618/narowski-v-narowski-no-fa00-0071932s-may-17-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374618","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-17","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch party is entitled. The wife is to retain her two Janey Montgomery Scott accounts and her two Oppenheimer Fund accounts totaling $42,683.69. In order to accomplish the court ordered division, the husband is to immediately transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, the sum of $46,430.71 from his 401 K plan. CUTSUMPAS, J."}
{"id":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9f4db3b-79f6-4b2f-b5e7-5113cc0c170e","slug":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161","title":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374618/narowski-v-narowski-no-fa00-0071932s-may-17-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374618","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-17","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): (wife's account) 1,939.90 • Janey Montgomery Scott (wife's account) 24,789.83 • Oppenheimer Fund (wife's account) 14,238.73 • Oppenheimer Fund (wife's account) 1,715.23 • Paine Webber (husband's account) 15,863.87 • UTC 401k plan (husband's account) 119,681.24 Total $178,228.80 One half of the above total equals $89,114.40, the amount to which each party is entitled. The wife is to retain her two Janey Montgomery Scott accounts and her two Oppenheimer Fund accounts totaling $42,683.69. In order to accomplish the court ordered division, the husband is to immediately transfer"}
{"id":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9f4db3b-79f6-4b2f-b5e7-5113cc0c170e","slug":"deborah-narowski-v-gregory-narowski-ct-page-6261-3370161","title":"Deborah Narowski v. Gregory Narowski. Ct Page 6261","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374618/narowski-v-narowski-no-fa00-0071932s-may-17-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374618","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-17","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s entitled. The wife is to retain her two Janey Montgomery Scott accounts and her two Oppenheimer Fund accounts totaling $42,683.69. In order to accomplish the court ordered division, the husband is to immediately transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, the sum of $46,430.71 from his 401 K plan. CUTSUMPAS, J."}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr. Date: 2000-04-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he amount of CT Page 5085-cn $225,000. The defendant testified that he does not have to contribute to the cost of this life insurance. 9. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his National Guard pension, with a stipulated value of $30,000, to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall transfer 30% of his regular employment pension to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) fund. 10. Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts and liabilities shown on their respective March 23, 2000 financial affidavits, as amended, except that the plaintiff shall be solely"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the marital home in Ellington, Connecticut is $144,000(2) The current debt of the first mortgage on the marital home is $30,000(3) The current debt on the second mortgage on the marital home is $28,000(4) The value of the defendant's military National Guard pension is $30,000. The court takes judicial notice of the prior pendente lite proceedings in this case contained in the court file. The court heard testimony from the plaintiff, the defendant, Walter Rudewicz, and Gloria Mancarella. From the testimony and evidence produced, and after carefully assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the follo"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): or vehicles including a 1994 Nissan Altima, 1988 Jeep Comanche, 1958 Mercedes 280, a 1999 Ford Escort, and a motorcycle. As of the date of trial the total funds reported in their checking and savings account was only $402. The only other assets are the wife's 401(k) account valued at $2500 and the husbands employment and National Guard Pensions. CT Page 5085-cl The court takes note that on October 26, 1998 the plaintiff filed a financial affidavit with the court relating to her pendente lite motion for alimony and child support. That affidavit listed total liabilities in the amount of $7,243, including a debt of $5,9"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c494ce2f-c6bd-405e-8395-8d7d90f40a90","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3355284","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359752/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-67847-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359752","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of CT Page 5085-cn $225,000. The defendant testified that he does not have to contribute to the cost of this life insurance. 9. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his National Guard pension, with a stipulated value of $30,000, to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall transfer 30% of his regular employment pension to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) fund. 10. Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts and liabilities shown on their respective March 23, 2000 financial affidavits, as amended, except that the plaintiff shall be solely"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr. Date: 2000-04-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: on his life in the amount of $225,000. The defendant testified that he does not have to contribute to the cost of this life insurance. 9. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his National Guard pension, with a stipulated value of $30,000, to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall transfer 30% of his regular employment pension to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) fund. 10. Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts and liabilities shown on their respective March 23, 2000 financial affidavits, as amended, except that the plaintiff shall be solely"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the marital home in Ellington, Connecticut is $144,000(2) The current debt of the first mortgage on the marital home is $30,000(3) The current debt on the second mortgage on the marital home is $28,000(4) The value of the defendant's military National Guard pension is $30,000. The court takes judicial notice of the prior pendente lite proceedings in this case contained in the court file. The court heard testimony from the plaintiff, the defendant, Walter Rudewicz, and Gloria Mancarella. From the testimony and evidence produced, and after carefully assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the follo"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): or vehicles including a 1994 Nissan Altima, 1988 Jeep Comanche, 1958 Mercedes 280, a 1999 Ford Escort, and a motorcycle. As of the date of trial the total funds reported in their checking and savings account was only $402. The only other assets are the wife's 401(k) account valued at $2500 and the husbands employment and National Guard Pensions. The court takes note that on October 26, 1998 the plaintiff filed a financial affidavit with the court relating to her pendente lite motion for alimony and child support. That affidavit listed total liabilities in the amount of $7,243, including a debt of $5,990 on an AFBA VI"}
{"id":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f28687cd-d415-4db9-8a49-bd2839087f43","slug":"deborah-s-renals-v-john-j-renals-jr-3362049","title":"Deborah S. Renals v. John J. Renals, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366510/renals-v-renals-no-fa-98-6784-apr-6-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366510","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-06","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e in the amount of $225,000. The defendant testified that he does not have to contribute to the cost of this life insurance. 9. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his National Guard pension, with a stipulated value of $30,000, to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall transfer 30% of his regular employment pension to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) fund. 10. Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts and liabilities shown on their respective March 23, 2000 financial affidavits, as amended, except that the plaintiff shall be solely"}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy. Date: 2001-02-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: from his father without claim from the Wife. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Vanguard IRA and TIAA accounts shall be lumped together and divided equally. The Husband shall cause a rollover to the Wife's account to accomplish the division or prepare, if necessary, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to accomplish same. The Husband shall retain his Tier I retirement benefits at the Metro-North Railroad. The spouse's benefit under the Railroad Retirement Act is not affected by these orders. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife by QDRO an interest in his Tier II retirement benefits as follows: the Wife's share shall be computed by multiplying"}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s shall be lumped together and divided equally. The Husband shall cause a rollover to the Wife's account to accomplish the division or prepare, if necessary, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to accomplish same. The Husband shall retain his Tier I retirement benefits at the Metro-North Railroad. The spouse's benefit under the Railroad Retirement Act is not affected by these orders. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife by QDRO an interest in his Tier II retirement benefits as follows: the Wife's share shall be computed by multiplying the divisible portion of the Husband's monthly benefit by a CT Page 2842 fraction t"}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: equity $164,390.00 • home furnishings/personal belongings 15,000.00 • Vanguard IRA's (H) 36,300.00 • TIAA Annuity (W) 6,576.46 • 96 Chevy Lumina equity (W) -0- • 87 Nissan (H) -0- • 90 Ford (H) 2,900.00 • Metro-North Pension ? • Personal injury action ? Liabilities of the parties, excluding counsel fees for this action, include the following: • GMAC $5,400.00 • Milford Tax Collector 10,742.07 • Sallie Mae (student loan) 27,010.00 • AFSA (Student loan) 3,593.00 • Levitz 842.00 • Lechmere 848.00 • Service Merchandise 705.00 &#82"}
{"id":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0792e711-e65a-40a8-b33d-1c3bd4d80953","slug":"deborah-yanosy-v-thomas-yanosy-3328160","title":"Deborah Yanosy v. Thomas Yanosy.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332660/yanosy-v-yanosy-no-fa-00-0069272-feb-23-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332660","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-02-23","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ather without claim from the Wife. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Vanguard IRA and TIAA accounts shall be lumped together and divided equally. The Husband shall cause a rollover to the Wife's account to accomplish the division or prepare, if necessary, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to accomplish same. The Husband shall retain his Tier I retirement benefits at the Metro-North Railroad. The spouse's benefit under the Railroad Retirement Act is not affected by these orders. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife by QDRO an interest in his Tier II retirement benefits as follows: the Wife's share shall be computed by multiplying"}
{"id":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9234f5b-4b4a-428c-a766-fa1c1b8db486","slug":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070","title":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336565/hensch-v-hensch-no-fa01-0123556s-dec-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336565","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-12-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch. Date: 2002-12-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9234f5b-4b4a-428c-a766-fa1c1b8db486","slug":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070","title":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336565/hensch-v-hensch-no-fa01-0123556s-dec-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336565","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-12-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9234f5b-4b4a-428c-a766-fa1c1b8db486","slug":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070","title":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336565/hensch-v-hensch-no-fa01-0123556s-dec-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336565","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-12-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: coverage presently in place. The agreement also provides for daycare expenses. The agreement treats an obligation on the plaintiff to apply for Husky insurance coverage and for Cobra benefits for the plaintiff. The agreement refers to the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order document relative to the plaintiffs receipt of a one-half share of the defendant's 401K. The agreement touches on and treats automobiles as between the parties, bank accounts, personalty, debts, life insurance. Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified as to the irretrievable breakdown of the marital union. CT Page 16324 As indicated, the two reser"}
{"id":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9234f5b-4b4a-428c-a766-fa1c1b8db486","slug":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070","title":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336565/hensch-v-hensch-no-fa01-0123556s-dec-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336565","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-12-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): , $301.55 for a net of CT Page 16323 $592.97. Claimed weekly expenses, $941.51. Debt of the defendant, $10,705.00. No real estate. Two automobiles, total equity, $3,200.00. Two other older automobiles and personalty listed at $1,300.00; $135.00 in the bank, a 401K valued at $8,517.43. A separation agreement presented to the court for acceptance reflects that there shall be joint legal custody of the minor boys with the plaintiff mother being the primary custodial parent. Reasonable rights of visitation as spelled out in detail in the lengthy separation agreement. Child support in the amount of $204.00 a week, which"}
{"id":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e9234f5b-4b4a-428c-a766-fa1c1b8db486","slug":"debra-a-hensch-v-john-t-hensch-3332070","title":"Debra A. Hensch v. John T. Hensch.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336565/hensch-v-hensch-no-fa01-0123556s-dec-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336565","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-12-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: resently in place. The agreement also provides for daycare expenses. The agreement treats an obligation on the plaintiff to apply for Husky insurance coverage and for Cobra benefits for the plaintiff. The agreement refers to the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order document relative to the plaintiffs receipt of a one-half share of the defendant's 401K. The agreement touches on and treats automobiles as between the parties, bank accounts, personalty, debts, life insurance. Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified as to the irretrievable breakdown of the marital union. CT Page 16324 As indicated, the two reser"}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio. Date: 2002-11-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s free and clear of any claims by the Wife. PENSIONS AND 401K ACCOUNTS CT Page 14430 The Husband shall retain his pension, free and clear of any claim by the Wife. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife the sum of $30,000.00 from his 401K by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if necessary. Any cost for preparation of same shall be paid for equally by the parties. The court shall continue its jurisdiction for the purpose of effectuating the terms of this clause so that its intent and purposes may be carried through. INCOME TAX REFUND CHECKS The court finds that the Husband properly used the 2000 income tax return for family"}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n his financial affidavit. WORKERS COMPENSATION By agreement of the parties, the Husband shall retain his workers compensation settlements free and clear of any claims by the Wife. PENSIONS AND 401K ACCOUNTS CT Page 14430 The Husband shall retain his pension, free and clear of any claim by the Wife. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife the sum of $30,000.00 from his 401K by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if necessary. Any cost for preparation of same shall be paid for equally by the parties. The court shall continue its jurisdiction for the purpose of effectuating the terms of this clause so"}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . The Husband shall retain all the other vehicles listed in his financial affidavit. WORKERS COMPENSATION By agreement of the parties, the Husband shall retain his workers compensation settlements free and clear of any claims by the Wife. PENSIONS AND 401K ACCOUNTS CT Page 14430 The Husband shall retain his pension, free and clear of any claim by the Wife. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife the sum of $30,000.00 from his 401K by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if necessary. Any cost for preparation of same shall be paid for equally by the parties. The court shall continue its jurisdict"}
{"id":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4bd76057-f0e1-4427-b27f-e7009c7baf69","slug":"debra-ann-consiglio-v-andrew-consiglio-3336239","title":"Debra Ann Consiglio v. Andrew Consiglio.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340728/consiglio-v-consiglio-no-fa-010454297-nov-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-11-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: clear of any claims by the Wife. PENSIONS AND 401K ACCOUNTS CT Page 14430 The Husband shall retain his pension, free and clear of any claim by the Wife. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife the sum of $30,000.00 from his 401K by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if necessary. Any cost for preparation of same shall be paid for equally by the parties. The court shall continue its jurisdiction for the purpose of effectuating the terms of this clause so that its intent and purposes may be carried through. INCOME TAX REFUND CHECKS The court finds that the Husband properly used the 2000 income tax return for family"}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley. Date: 2001-04-30. Machine-draft public headnote: Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sting life insurance policy in effect and list the defendant as beneficiary during the minority of the minor children. Each party shall be entitled to the present cash value of their existing policies. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order one-third of the value of the defendant's military pension commencing at the time of his termination from military service. The plaintiff shall be entitled to any proportionate increase in the value of said pension based upon cost of living adjustment or similar increase. The plaintiff shall also own the entire TIAA/CREF plan currently in her name free of a"}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: oss and Mr. Bentley's is $1,390.00 per week gross. Mr. Bentley has indicated that he will be forced to retire upon his twentieth year in the service at his present rank. That will take place in October of this year. Upon retirement, he will receive a military pension of $2,000.00 per month. The majority of the plaintiffs assets consist of the Colchester, Connecticut residence, and a residence jointly owned in Washington, DC. In addition, there is some cash value in insurance policies, a 401K plan held by Mrs. Bentley and the military pension as aforementioned. ORDERS: The court has considered the statutory criteri"}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e will receive a military pension of $2,000.00 per month. The majority of the plaintiffs assets consist of the Colchester, Connecticut residence, and a residence jointly owned in Washington, DC. In addition, there is some cash value in insurance policies, a 401K plan held by Mrs. Bentley and the military pension as aforementioned. ORDERS: The court has considered the statutory criteria applicable to this matter. It is found that the marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. Said marriage is hereby ordered dissolved. The court further orders the following: The parties shall have joint custody of"}
{"id":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ba93d483-b319-46be-b0a2-26de31b72b00","slug":"denise-a-bentley-v-kevin-c-bentley-3336358","title":"Denise A. Bentley v. Kevin C. Bentley.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340847/bentley-v-bentley-no-fa99-0117610s-apr-30-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-04-30","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: insurance policy in effect and list the defendant as beneficiary during the minority of the minor children. Each party shall be entitled to the present cash value of their existing policies. The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order one-third of the value of the defendant's military pension commencing at the time of his termination from military service. The plaintiff shall be entitled to any proportionate increase in the value of said pension based upon cost of living adjustment or similar increase. The plaintiff shall also own the entire TIAA/CREF plan currently in her name free of a"}
{"id":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3bf73bf-e6a2-44a9-afa4-3e9464098c88","slug":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230","title":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342716/burton-smith-v-smith-no-fa96-0324828-s-nov-25-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342716","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-25","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith Date: 1998-11-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3bf73bf-e6a2-44a9-afa4-3e9464098c88","slug":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230","title":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342716/burton-smith-v-smith-no-fa96-0324828-s-nov-25-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342716","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-25","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3bf73bf-e6a2-44a9-afa4-3e9464098c88","slug":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230","title":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342716/burton-smith-v-smith-no-fa96-0324828-s-nov-25-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342716","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-25","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ble to bear any of the expense. PENSION The defendant has certain pension rights with present or former employers or has had these rights. It is ordered that one-half of any pension assets he now has available shall be assigned to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The plaintiff shall have one-half the value of any pension assets that have been disposed of by the defendant. The net effect of this order is that the plaintiff shall have one-half of any and all pension assets or the value thereof that the defendant is entitled to or has been entitled to. DEPENDENCY DEDUCTION The defendant shall be entitled to"}
{"id":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3bf73bf-e6a2-44a9-afa4-3e9464098c88","slug":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230","title":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342716/burton-smith-v-smith-no-fa96-0324828-s-nov-25-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342716","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-25","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ttorney's fees incurred in the present court action for the dissolution of the marriage in the amount of $8500 to be paid to plaintiff's attorney on or before December 8, 1998. The Court makes a finding that defendant is not able to bear any of the expense. PENSION The defendant has certain pension rights with present or former employers or has had these rights. It is ordered that one-half of any pension assets he now has available shall be assigned to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The plaintiff shall have one-half the value of any pension assets that have been disposed of by th"}
{"id":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d3bf73bf-e6a2-44a9-afa4-3e9464098c88","slug":"denise-burton-smith-v-allan-m-smith-3338230","title":"Denise Burton-Smith v. Allan M. Smith","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342716/burton-smith-v-smith-no-fa96-0324828-s-nov-25-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342716","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-25","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r any of the expense. PENSION The defendant has certain pension rights with present or former employers or has had these rights. It is ordered that one-half of any pension assets he now has available shall be assigned to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The plaintiff shall have one-half the value of any pension assets that have been disposed of by the defendant. The net effect of this order is that the plaintiff shall have one-half of any and all pension assets or the value thereof that the defendant is entitled to or has been entitled to. DEPENDENCY DEDUCTION The defendant shall be entitled to"}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd Date: 1998-11-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: re the responsibility of the plaintiff under Paragraph 1 hereof. The time for this payment may be extended by thirty days if the plaintiff require that time to mortgage the condominium to obtain the funds. 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the entire amount of his pension, which is listed on his financial affidavits as having a value of $26,000 but the value of which is found by the court to be $40,562.40. Each party shall retain the other retirement accounts and retirement savings plans listed on their respective financial affidavits. 5. Each party shall retain the automobile(s) lis"}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: defendant by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the entire amount of his pension, which is listed on his financial affidavits as having a value of $26,000 but the value of which is found by the court to be $40,562.40. Each party shall retain the other retirement accounts and retirement savings plans listed on their respective financial affidavits. 5. Each party shall retain the automobile(s) listed on their respective financial affidavits. 6. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $193 per week as child support for the minor child until she reaches the age of eighteen or graduates from high school but in no event past h"}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e time for this payment may be extended by thirty days if the plaintiff require that time to mortgage the condominium to obtain the funds. 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the entire amount of his pension, which is listed on his financial affidavits as having a value of $26,000 but the value of which is found by the court to be $40,562.40. Each party shall retain the other retirement accounts and retirement savings plans listed on their respective financial affidavits. 5. Each party shall retain the automobile(s) listed on their respective financial affida"}
{"id":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"76be3807-de6c-4136-8d78-006026ff6177","slug":"dennis-a-dowd-v-shrimatee-dowd-3347624","title":"Dennis A. Dowd v. Shrimatee Dowd","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352101/dowd-v-dowd-no-fa-96-0712085-s-nov-24-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352101","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-24","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ponsibility of the plaintiff under Paragraph 1 hereof. The time for this payment may be extended by thirty days if the plaintiff require that time to mortgage the condominium to obtain the funds. 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the entire amount of his pension, which is listed on his financial affidavits as having a value of $26,000 but the value of which is found by the court to be $40,562.40. Each party shall retain the other retirement accounts and retirement savings plans listed on their respective financial affidavits. 5. Each party shall retain the automobile(s) lis"}
{"id":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8209cffd-4bc9-46db-bc2d-7eb655554bbf","slug":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931","title":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345416/tenk-v-tenk-no-fa-01-0342412-jul-11-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-11","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr. Date: 2002-07-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8209cffd-4bc9-46db-bc2d-7eb655554bbf","slug":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931","title":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345416/tenk-v-tenk-no-fa-01-0342412-jul-11-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-11","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8209cffd-4bc9-46db-bc2d-7eb655554bbf","slug":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931","title":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345416/tenk-v-tenk-no-fa-01-0342412-jul-11-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-11","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and Trust in the approximate amount of $36,132.82, a Prudential Annuity (#96544360) in the approximate amount of $6,037.41. The approximate total of all these accounts is $134,345.23. These accounts shall be divided equally by the parties. In the event that a QDRO is necessary to divide any of these accounts, the parties shall equally share the cost of preparation of any necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over the accounts until they are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDROs. However, the W"}
{"id":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8209cffd-4bc9-46db-bc2d-7eb655554bbf","slug":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931","title":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345416/tenk-v-tenk-no-fa-01-0342412-jul-11-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-11","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: all remain the sole property of the person whose name is oh the account. The Wife has a TIAF Account the approximate amount of $25,200.00. The Husband has a Prudential Annuity Account (#96530663) in the approximate amount of $66,975.00, a Tyres Organization Retirement Plan and Trust in the approximate amount of $36,132.82, a Prudential Annuity (#96544360) in the approximate amount of $6,037.41. The approximate total of all these accounts is $134,345.23. These accounts shall be divided equally by the parties. In the event that a QDRO is necessary to divide any of these accounts, the parties shall equally share the cost of prep"}
{"id":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8209cffd-4bc9-46db-bc2d-7eb655554bbf","slug":"diane-m-tenk-v-joseph-tenk-jr-3340931","title":"Diane M. Tenk v. Joseph Tenk, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345416/tenk-v-tenk-no-fa-01-0342412-jul-11-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-11","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): or the debts on her financial affidavit. BANK ACCOUNTS — CHILDREN The parties have agreed that the bank accounts, being held for the benefit of the children, shall remain the property of the children. BANK ACCOUNTS, DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS, RETIREMENTS ACCOUNTS The parties each have bank accounts at People's Bank, these accounts shall remain the sole property of the person whose name is oh the account. The Wife has a TIAF Account the approximate amount of $25,200.00. The Husband has a Prudential Annuity Account (#96530663) in the approximate amount of $66,975.00, a Tyres Organiza"}
{"id":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2ad9051-9b04-4cff-be20-b6f33b190425","slug":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098","title":"Dina L. Dufresne v. James P. Crosskey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369558/dufresne-v-crosskey-no-fa96-0322993-s-mar-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369558","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Dina L. Dufresne v. James P. Crosskey Date: 1999-03-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Dina L. Dufresne v. James P. Crosskey is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2ad9051-9b04-4cff-be20-b6f33b190425","slug":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098","title":"Dina L. Dufresne v. James P. Crosskey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369558/dufresne-v-crosskey-no-fa96-0322993-s-mar-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369558","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a2ad9051-9b04-4cff-be20-b6f33b190425","slug":"dina-l-dufresne-v-james-p-crosskey-3365098","title":"Dina L. Dufresne v. James P. Crosskey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369558/dufresne-v-crosskey-no-fa96-0322993-s-mar-16-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369558","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-16","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e which shall occur within 120 days of judgment. The defendant shall make every effort to remove plaintiff from obligation on the note and present mortgage securing said obligation. The Court shall retain jurisdiction on the execution and maintenance of any QDRO. ARTICULATION Pursuant to the motion for articulation filed by defendant on January 29, 1999, it was the Court's intention that the $6000 payment ordered in its judgment at page 5, subsection (C) is additional periodic alimony. It was also the Court's intention at page 5, subsection (D) that the plaintiff shall be entitled to 25 percent of the net amou"}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody Date: 1993-04-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of dissolution of the marriage shall enter on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. DIVISION OF CERTAIN ASSETS The parties shall share equally the IBM Retirement Plan pension that the husband receives from his prior employment at IBM. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter giving to the wife, a 50% interest in said Plan. The parties shall share equally in the account balance of the husband's IBM Tax Deferred Savings Plan as of December 31, 1992, together with a pro rata share of any gains or losses in said Plan from December 31, 1992 to the date of distribution. This order shall have no effect on the husband's r"}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: . 46b-82 (the alimony statute). Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: A decree of dissolution of the marriage shall enter on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. DIVISION OF CERTAIN ASSETS The parties shall share equally the IBM Retirement Plan pension that the husband receives from his prior employment at IBM. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter giving to the wife, a 50% interest in said Plan. The parties shall share equally in the account balance of the husband's IBM Tax Deferred Savings Plan as of December 31, 1992, together with a pro rata share of any gains or losses in said Pl"}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nsel, the estimate of the wife's annual earning capacity is $10,000.00 by the wife and $15,000 by the husband. The husband has been continuously employed since the marriage. He retired from I.B.M. in June, 1989 after 27 years with the company and receives a pension from them slightly in excess of $30,000.00 per year. Additionally, since retirement from IBM, he has continued work as an independent consultant, primarily to the utility industry and has averaged $143,000.00 for the period through 1992. The husband testified that the primary source of his consulting income was from one company which had paid him $10,000.00"}
{"id":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2aeda833-7b03-46bc-a8fc-b141645fc756","slug":"dolores-l-briody-v-laurence-p-briody-3362249","title":"Dolores L. Briody v. Laurence P. Briody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366710/briody-v-briody-no-fa-91-0307164-s-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366710","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ution of the marriage shall enter on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. DIVISION OF CERTAIN ASSETS The parties shall share equally the IBM Retirement Plan pension that the husband receives from his prior employment at IBM. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter giving to the wife, a 50% interest in said Plan. The parties shall share equally in the account balance of the husband's IBM Tax Deferred Savings Plan as of December 31, 1992, together with a pro rata share of any gains or losses in said Plan from December 31, 1992 to the date of distribution. This order shall have no effect on the husband's r"}
{"id":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31d197dd-e5ba-41d5-8502-1305a01937eb","slug":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555","title":"Don Carmichael v. Julie Carmichael","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359023/carmichael-v-carmichael-no-fa91-0115017-s-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359023","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Don Carmichael v. Julie Carmichael Date: 1995-01-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Don Carmichael v. Julie Carmichael is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31d197dd-e5ba-41d5-8502-1305a01937eb","slug":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555","title":"Don Carmichael v. Julie Carmichael","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359023/carmichael-v-carmichael-no-fa91-0115017-s-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359023","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31d197dd-e5ba-41d5-8502-1305a01937eb","slug":"don-carmichael-v-julie-carmichael-3354555","title":"Don Carmichael v. Julie Carmichael","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359023/carmichael-v-carmichael-no-fa91-0115017-s-jan-31-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359023","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-31","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The plaintiff has clearly established a substantial change of his circumstances since the original alimony order was entered. He is entitled to a modification. The periodic alimony order is reduced to $1.00 per year. The plaintiff also seeks to terminate a QDRO designed to collect the alimony. This request is denied. The plaintiff also seeks to terminate life insurance. Article VI of the Separation Agreement provides for various contingencies that were not addressed in this hearing. The court declines to address the insurance issue. The modification is entered. No retroactivity is ordered, § 46b-86 (a)."}
{"id":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9ed3609-355a-4422-88dd-165a2e1e94ce","slug":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708","title":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339199/blair-v-sommer-no-fa90-0110720-s-jan-7-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339199","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-01-07","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer Date: 1992-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9ed3609-355a-4422-88dd-165a2e1e94ce","slug":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708","title":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339199/blair-v-sommer-no-fa90-0110720-s-jan-7-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339199","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-01-07","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9ed3609-355a-4422-88dd-165a2e1e94ce","slug":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708","title":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339199/blair-v-sommer-no-fa90-0110720-s-jan-7-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339199","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-01-07","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f a property settlement. Said sum shall be paid within 30 days of date. B. In addition, the plaintiff shall forthwith transfer to the defendant the sum of $40,000 in profit sharing funds to the defendant's IRA account. Said payment may be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or in any other manner as the parties shall agree. The court finds that the plaintiff's pension increased by $101,974 during the marriage. In addition, the plaintiff's Profit Sharing Plan substantially increased during the course of the marriage. 3. Alimony The plaintiff is awarded periodic alimony in the amount of $1.00 per year for a period of four"}
{"id":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9ed3609-355a-4422-88dd-165a2e1e94ce","slug":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708","title":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339199/blair-v-sommer-no-fa90-0110720-s-jan-7-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339199","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-01-07","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: fer to the defendant the sum of $40,000 in profit sharing funds to the defendant's IRA account. Said payment may be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or in any other manner as the parties shall agree. The court finds that the plaintiff's pension increased by $101,974 during the marriage. In addition, the plaintiff's Profit Sharing Plan substantially increased during the course of the marriage. 3. Alimony The plaintiff is awarded periodic alimony in the amount of $1.00 per year for a period of four years from date. The term of alimony shall be non modifiable. Said alimony shall be modified as to"}
{"id":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b9ed3609-355a-4422-88dd-165a2e1e94ce","slug":"donald-blair-v-constance-sommer-3334708","title":"Donald Blair v. Constance Sommer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339199/blair-v-sommer-no-fa90-0110720-s-jan-7-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339199","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-01-07","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ty settlement. Said sum shall be paid within 30 days of date. B. In addition, the plaintiff shall forthwith transfer to the defendant the sum of $40,000 in profit sharing funds to the defendant's IRA account. Said payment may be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or in any other manner as the parties shall agree. The court finds that the plaintiff's pension increased by $101,974 during the marriage. In addition, the plaintiff's Profit Sharing Plan substantially increased during the course of the marriage. 3. Alimony The plaintiff is awarded periodic alimony in the amount of $1.00 per year for a period of four"}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall Date: 1993-04-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Donald Hall v. Mary Hall is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to effect this order with the U.S. Dept. of CT Page 3806 Defense Center (c.f. Defendant's Exhibit #1), within the time limited to do so after entry of this judgment. The court orders 50% of the plaintiff's pension awarded and assigned to the defendant via a qualified domestic relations order so that 50% of the plaintiff's pension accrued to date is paid to the defendant as an alternate payee. The plaintiff is ordered to cooperate in the preparation of the QDRO. The plaintiff is ordered to maintain the two minor children on his U.S. government $50,000 life insurance policy until both minors have reached 18. The court assigns ownership of the"}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the parties' marriage that took place on March 17, 1960. The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as now moot. The plaintiff joined the Army in 1958 and after serving for 20 years, 26 days, was discharged on September 1, 1978. He now receives retired pay (pension) of $218 weekly gross and $188 net taxes. He has been employed by the Coca Cola Bottling Co. since August 9, 1980 where he has a vested retirement fund valued at $5,000. The plaintiff exercised his one opportunity to withdraw a lump sum in 1989. After retiring from the U.S. Army, the plaintiff attended Mattatuck Community College and then Western Connecticu"}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: mited to do so after entry of this judgment. The court orders 50% of the plaintiff's pension awarded and assigned to the defendant via a qualified domestic relations order so that 50% of the plaintiff's pension accrued to date is paid to the defendant as an alternate payee. The plaintiff is ordered to cooperate in the preparation of the QDRO. The plaintiff is ordered to maintain the two minor children on his U.S. government $50,000 life insurance policy until both minors have reached 18. The court assigns ownership of the 1981 Chevrolet to the plaintiff and he shall be solely responsible for any taxes due on it. The cou"}
{"id":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"22d20d0e-3e2f-44a5-a5ce-8633c51a4893","slug":"donald-hall-v-mary-hall-3355245","title":"Donald Hall v. Mary Hall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359713/hall-v-hall-no-0105755-apr-20-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359713","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-20","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: this order with the U.S. Dept. of CT Page 3806 Defense Center (c.f. Defendant's Exhibit #1), within the time limited to do so after entry of this judgment. The court orders 50% of the plaintiff's pension awarded and assigned to the defendant via a qualified domestic relations order so that 50% of the plaintiff's pension accrued to date is paid to the defendant as an alternate payee. The plaintiff is ordered to cooperate in the preparation of the QDRO. The plaintiff is ordered to maintain the two minor children on his U.S. government $50,000 life insurance policy until both minors have reached 18. The court assigns ownership of the"}
{"id":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5a54543-2f44-4759-918b-d5d95ae4c4fc","slug":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936","title":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356406/konz-v-konz-no-fa99-0117929-jun-13-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356406","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-13","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz. Date: 2000-06-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5a54543-2f44-4759-918b-d5d95ae4c4fc","slug":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936","title":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356406/konz-v-konz-no-fa99-0117929-jun-13-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356406","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-13","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5a54543-2f44-4759-918b-d5d95ae4c4fc","slug":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936","title":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356406/konz-v-konz-no-fa99-0117929-jun-13-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356406","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-13","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: her employer. ATTY. CAISSE: I must have missed that, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay, that's fine. Mr. Traystman? ATTY. TRAYSTMAN: Your Honor, I have just two questions. I'm hoping the Court will retain jurisdiction over the terms of the allotment or QDRO. THE COURT: Absolutely. For purposes of their effectuations in accordance with the tenor of the orders. Thank you. ATTY. TRAYSTMAN: And I should defer to Atty. Lenes but it's my understanding that the military will not allow the allotment unless it's done by percentage as opposed to amount, that is my understanding, I may be wrong. ATTY. LENES: That's"}
{"id":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5a54543-2f44-4759-918b-d5d95ae4c4fc","slug":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936","title":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356406/konz-v-konz-no-fa99-0117929-jun-13-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356406","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-13","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r at least that was the basis he told her. The tax liability that was paid off by the thirty-four thousand dollar debt was a result of Mr. Konz not having proper receipts from his deductions to present at an audit by the Federal Government. Mr. Konz has a pension that he receives from the Navy which provides somewhere in the neighborhood of about two hundred and seventy-eight dollars per week, or, rounded off, about twelve hundred dollars a month. He has been receiving it since his retirement in 1996. Before the parties' separation those funds were used to pay the mortgage and Mrs. Konz paid every other household bi"}
{"id":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5a54543-2f44-4759-918b-d5d95ae4c4fc","slug":"donald-konz-v-lorna-konz-3351936","title":"Donald Konz v. Lorna Konz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356406/konz-v-konz-no-fa99-0117929-jun-13-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356406","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-13","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): and two hundred dollars for checking; Liberty Bank savings has forty-two dollars; L and M Employee Credit Union checking and savings of five hundred and forty-seven dollars. There is a transferred L and M defined benefit pension plan, which transferred into a 401K, has an accumulative total value, the Court finds, of twenty-two thousand one hundred and eighty-seven dollars, and another 401K benefit of Ms. Konz' of seven hundred and seventy-five dollars. CT Page 7176 There is indebtedness; mortgage indebtedness of a hundred and four thousand dollars, the home equity loan of about thirty-four thousand dollars, credit"}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell Date: 1996-10-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pay the sum of $10 per week to the State of Connecticut on the support arrearage. He is to hold the defendant harmless on that arrearage. 9. The defined pension plan that the plaintiff has with Pitney Bowes is ordered divided equally between the parties by QDRO. The plaintiff is to prepare the QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. E. BY WAY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES 1. No attorney's fees are awarded in favor of either party. F. MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS 1. The parties are to exchange copies of their federal and state income tax returns within thirty da"}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ng: (a) vacation, twenty days per year; (b) sick leave, six days per year; (c) holidays, twelve days per year; (d) one personal day per year; (e) $50,000 life insurance; and (f) health and dental insurance. The plaintiff is presently 100 percent vested in his retirement plan, having commenced employment with Pitney Bowes on March 28, 1979. His accrued benefit, payable at age sixty-five on April 1, 2025, his normal retirement date, is approximately $436.76 per month as a life annuity, or $401.82 per month as a 50 percent joint and survivor' annuity. The employer pays the entire cost of the plan. The plan does not allow distribut"}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ekly income is $580. His net weekly income is $433, as shown on the child support guideline worksheet submitted on his behalf. The cost of his therapy treatment is approximately $15 weekly to him. He started working at Pitney Bowes on March 28, 1979. He has a pension plan at Pitney Bowes in which benefits will not commence until he reaches age sixty-five. His financial affidavit shows a deduction of $54 weekly for credit union. That is a deduction that is put into his savings account. He has a balance in his credit union savings account of approximately $250. When the parties separated in March of 1995, there was a cred"}
{"id":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f1030cbd-a0cf-40a0-803f-8dcb04c602cd","slug":"donald-n-campbell-jr-v-karen-a-campbell-3345157","title":"Donald N. Campbell, Jr. v. Karen A. Campbell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349636/campbell-v-campbell-no-32-09-84-oct-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349636","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ndant has approximately eighteen months of state assistance benefits that are remaining. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody, joint custody and visitation, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters t"}
{"id":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"481176fe-fd37-453d-9f90-dde6d7546226","slug":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459","title":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347942/stearns-v-stearns-no-fa-98-0417654s-jan-24-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347942","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-24","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns. Date: 2001-01-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"481176fe-fd37-453d-9f90-dde6d7546226","slug":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459","title":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347942/stearns-v-stearns-no-fa-98-0417654s-jan-24-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347942","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-24","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"481176fe-fd37-453d-9f90-dde6d7546226","slug":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459","title":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347942/stearns-v-stearns-no-fa-98-0417654s-jan-24-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347942","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-24","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: wife desires to obtain this coverage she shall be responsible for payment of the premiums. The husband shall assign to the wife one-half of his TIAA/CREF retirement plan valued as of the date of this judgment. The court shall retain jurisdiction to issue a qualified domestic relations order if necessary to effectuate this order. The husband shall pay and hold the wife harmless from the joint indebtedness to the Internal Revenue Service. Based upon the Stipulation of the parties in open court, the court will make no further orders regarding the liabilities of the parties since the husband has recently filed bankruptcy and the wife expects t"}
{"id":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"481176fe-fd37-453d-9f90-dde6d7546226","slug":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459","title":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347942/stearns-v-stearns-no-fa-98-0417654s-jan-24-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347942","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-24","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: plaintiff shall make available, through his employer, health insurance for the wife under COBRA. If the wife desires to obtain this coverage she shall be responsible for payment of the premiums. The husband shall assign to the wife one-half of his TIAA/CREF retirement plan valued as of the date of this judgment. The court shall retain jurisdiction to issue a qualified domestic relations order if necessary to effectuate this order. The husband shall pay and hold the wife harmless from the joint indebtedness to the Internal Revenue Service. Based upon the Stipulation of the parties in open court, the court will make no furt"}
{"id":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"481176fe-fd37-453d-9f90-dde6d7546226","slug":"donald-stearns-v-debra-c-stearns-3343459","title":"Donald Stearns v. Debra C. Stearns.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347942/stearns-v-stearns-no-fa-98-0417654s-jan-24-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347942","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-24","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: res to obtain this coverage she shall be responsible for payment of the premiums. The husband shall assign to the wife one-half of his TIAA/CREF retirement plan valued as of the date of this judgment. The court shall retain jurisdiction to issue a qualified domestic relations order if necessary to effectuate this order. The husband shall pay and hold the wife harmless from the joint indebtedness to the Internal Revenue Service. Based upon the Stipulation of the parties in open court, the court will make no further orders regarding the liabilities of the parties since the husband has recently filed bankruptcy and the wife expects t"}
{"id":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97aade11-753c-44a5-9f9f-d3a03974a12d","slug":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635","title":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338129/claffey-v-claffey-no-51-44-87-nov-8-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338129","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-08","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey Date: 1991-11-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97aade11-753c-44a5-9f9f-d3a03974a12d","slug":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635","title":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338129/claffey-v-claffey-no-51-44-87-nov-8-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338129","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-08","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97aade11-753c-44a5-9f9f-d3a03974a12d","slug":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635","title":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338129/claffey-v-claffey-no-51-44-87-nov-8-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338129","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-08","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pay his share directly to the plaintiff and plaintiff shall pay the credit union directly. Each shall hold the other harmless from their respective share of the debt. 8. As a property settlement, the husband shall assign the sum of $25,000 from his SSIP by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be prepared by counsel for plaintiff and submitted to the Court for its approval. 9. Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties shall be responsible for their own liabilities and shall hold the other harmless. 10. All other assets except as herein provided shall be retained by the party owning the same. CT Page 9983 11. The 199"}
{"id":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97aade11-753c-44a5-9f9f-d3a03974a12d","slug":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635","title":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338129/claffey-v-claffey-no-51-44-87-nov-8-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338129","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-08","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: parties in the following evaluation by the Court. The Court finds that the gross assets of the parties consist of the following: a. SSIP value — $68,740 less $12,730 paid to Keith Claffey $56,010 b. Equity in real estate $50,000 c. Present value of pension $16,226 -------- $122,236 The Court does not accept the argument that the real estate should be valued by using the 17 Huntington Way, Ledyard, Connecticut, property. The wife was justified in attempting to reduce the mortgage payment so as to improve the cash flow. Having taken into consideration all of the testimony, exhibits and mandates of Connectic"}
{"id":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"97aade11-753c-44a5-9f9f-d3a03974a12d","slug":"donna-claffey-v-robert-claffey-3333635","title":"Donna Claffey v. Robert Claffey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338129/claffey-v-claffey-no-51-44-87-nov-8-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338129","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-08","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hare directly to the plaintiff and plaintiff shall pay the credit union directly. Each shall hold the other harmless from their respective share of the debt. 8. As a property settlement, the husband shall assign the sum of $25,000 from his SSIP by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be prepared by counsel for plaintiff and submitted to the Court for its approval. 9. Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties shall be responsible for their own liabilities and shall hold the other harmless. 10. All other assets except as herein provided shall be retained by the party owning the same. CT Page 9983 11. The 199"}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf Date: 1998-12-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l time level. Nonetheless, this is a marital asset which has increased in value during the course of this marriage, and the plaintiff is entitled to benefit from it. In light of all the other circumstances and other financial orders, the defendant will give a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to the plaintiff for an amount equal to 10% of the present value of his pension account. (The current value as shown on his financial affidavit is $80000). Medical Insurance: The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for her health insurance premiums which may be available to her under COBRA provisions. Taxes: The defendant shall be responsible"}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sary to assign any right title and interest on the account being retained by the other. Pension: The defendant has a retirement or pension plan with the State of Connecticut. The plaintiff has a TIAA/CREF plan with a present value of $3400. The defendant's retirement plan is based on 60% of his salary over his highest three years of earnings. It is estimated that when he retires he would get approximately $45000 annually. The plaintiff is seven years younger than the defendant and, with a Master's Degree, she expects to continue in the teaching profession, but at a full time level. Nonetheless, this is a marital asset which"}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y settlement within 30 days. The parties shall otherwise keep their own bank CT Page 14371 accounts, C.D.'s, IRA, and Kemper funds. They shall execute any documents necessary to assign any right title and interest on the account being retained by the other. Pension: The defendant has a retirement or pension plan with the State of Connecticut. The plaintiff has a TIAA/CREF plan with a present value of $3400. The defendant's retirement plan is based on 60% of his salary over his highest three years of earnings. It is estimated that when he retires he would get approximately $45000 annually. The plaintiff is seven years"}
{"id":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9e0afc87-12eb-46c7-a600-b149607a8ff0","slug":"donna-k-nebelkopf-v-edwin-e-nebelkopf-3328111","title":"Donna K. Nebelkopf v. Edwin E. Nebelkopf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332611/nebelkopf-v-nebelkopf-no-fa-62848-s-dec-11-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332611","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-11","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: el. Nonetheless, this is a marital asset which has increased in value during the course of this marriage, and the plaintiff is entitled to benefit from it. In light of all the other circumstances and other financial orders, the defendant will give a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to the plaintiff for an amount equal to 10% of the present value of his pension account. (The current value as shown on his financial affidavit is $80000). Medical Insurance: The plaintiff shall be solely responsible for her health insurance premiums which may be available to her under COBRA provisions. Taxes: The defendant shall be responsible"}
{"id":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c57bfc-1cbc-4f9e-9944-d427c5e7c696","slug":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658","title":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352135/kerwin-v-kerwin-no-fa97-0139754-dec-21-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352135","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-21","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin Date: 1998-12-21. Machine-draft public headnote: Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c57bfc-1cbc-4f9e-9944-d427c5e7c696","slug":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658","title":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352135/kerwin-v-kerwin-no-fa97-0139754-dec-21-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352135","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-21","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c57bfc-1cbc-4f9e-9944-d427c5e7c696","slug":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658","title":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352135/kerwin-v-kerwin-no-fa97-0139754-dec-21-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352135","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-21","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: appropriate homeowner's insurance on said premises and shall use reasonable care in maintaining the fair market value of said premises during the period of said mortgage. B. PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. PENSIONS (A) The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order twenty (25%) per cent of the value of his pension from the Borough of Naugatuck. Said conveyance shall be effectuated within 90 days of the date of this judgment. (B) The plaintiff shall her interest in and to her pension. 2. MISCELLANEOUS PERSONALTY The parties shall divide equally the household contents and other person effects and, except as otherw"}
{"id":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c57bfc-1cbc-4f9e-9944-d427c5e7c696","slug":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658","title":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352135/kerwin-v-kerwin-no-fa97-0139754-dec-21-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352135","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-21","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f Naugatuck as a construction inspector throughout the marriage. His financial affidavit indicates that his gross weekly income at the time of trial was $654.00, which netted him approximately $505.00 per week after allowable deductions. He testified that the pension he has with the Borough of Naugatuck will pay him $1800.00 per month at age 65, based upon his last three income years. The testimony permitted a finding that throughout the marriage the defendant abused alcohol and on more than one occasion received medical treatment for that condition. It was a major reason for the temporary separation of the parties on"}
{"id":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42c57bfc-1cbc-4f9e-9944-d427c5e7c696","slug":"donna-m-kerwin-v-james-f-kerwin-3347658","title":"Donna M. Kerwin v. James F. Kerwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352135/kerwin-v-kerwin-no-fa97-0139754-dec-21-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352135","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-12-21","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e homeowner's insurance on said premises and shall use reasonable care in maintaining the fair market value of said premises during the period of said mortgage. B. PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. PENSIONS (A) The defendant shall convey to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order twenty (25%) per cent of the value of his pension from the Borough of Naugatuck. Said conveyance shall be effectuated within 90 days of the date of this judgment. (B) The plaintiff shall her interest in and to her pension. 2. MISCELLANEOUS PERSONALTY The parties shall divide equally the household contents and other person effects and, except as otherw"}
{"id":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"017a8a80-9be1-48c2-bfbb-5e84598f0bf0","slug":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308","title":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366769/cisero-v-cosero-no-fa92-0107802-dec-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr. Date: 1994-12-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"017a8a80-9be1-48c2-bfbb-5e84598f0bf0","slug":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308","title":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366769/cisero-v-cosero-no-fa92-0107802-dec-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"017a8a80-9be1-48c2-bfbb-5e84598f0bf0","slug":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308","title":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366769/cisero-v-cosero-no-fa92-0107802-dec-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be turned over to the plaintiff for sale. The defendant is ordered to inform the plaintiff of the sale, the amount of the sale, and the name and address of the purchaser no less that seven (7) business days prior to that sale. The plaintiff shall receive by Qualified Domestic Relations Order the entire balance of the defendant's pension. The lawn tractor shall be sold and the proceeds shall be applied to the arrearage in child support, first to the State of Connecticut, as its interest may appear, and then to the plaintiff. The court finds that child support and alimony arrearage to be Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ten ($6,810.00) Dollars. Pay"}
{"id":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"017a8a80-9be1-48c2-bfbb-5e84598f0bf0","slug":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308","title":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366769/cisero-v-cosero-no-fa92-0107802-dec-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: orm the plaintiff of the sale, the amount of the sale, and the name and address of the purchaser no less that seven (7) business days prior to that sale. The plaintiff shall receive by Qualified Domestic Relations Order the entire balance of the defendant's pension. The lawn tractor shall be sold and the proceeds shall be applied to the arrearage in child support, first to the State of Connecticut, as its interest may appear, and then to the plaintiff. The court finds that child support and alimony arrearage to be Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ten ($6,810.00) Dollars. Payments on the arrearage shall be Twenty ($20.00"}
{"id":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"017a8a80-9be1-48c2-bfbb-5e84598f0bf0","slug":"doreen-cisero-v-ronald-cosero-jr-3362308","title":"Doreen Cisero v. Ronald Cosero, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366769/cisero-v-cosero-no-fa92-0107802-dec-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: over to the plaintiff for sale. The defendant is ordered to inform the plaintiff of the sale, the amount of the sale, and the name and address of the purchaser no less that seven (7) business days prior to that sale. The plaintiff shall receive by Qualified Domestic Relations Order the entire balance of the defendant's pension. The lawn tractor shall be sold and the proceeds shall be applied to the arrearage in child support, first to the State of Connecticut, as its interest may appear, and then to the plaintiff. The court finds that child support and alimony arrearage to be Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ten ($6,810.00) Dollars. Pay"}
{"id":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd1a01b-5685-4d79-837f-ddc2b7d88236","slug":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032","title":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352509/buckwalter-blum-v-blum-no-fa-92-0308964s-nov-4-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352509","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-04","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum Date: 1993-11-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd1a01b-5685-4d79-837f-ddc2b7d88236","slug":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032","title":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352509/buckwalter-blum-v-blum-no-fa-92-0308964s-nov-4-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352509","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-04","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd1a01b-5685-4d79-837f-ddc2b7d88236","slug":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032","title":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352509/buckwalter-blum-v-blum-no-fa-92-0308964s-nov-4-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352509","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-04","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: husband shall transfer to the wife, free and clear of any liens, one half of the shares of stock that he owns in IBM. The tax refund for the year 1991 shall be divided equally by the parties. The wife shall receive 22% of the husband's pension benefits. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter giving to the wife said 22% interest therein. CT Page 9559 The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $20,000.00 for her share in the Tax Deferred Savings Plan accumulated from the earnings of the husband. Each party shall retain the motor vehicle shown on his or her financial affidavit and each party shall be responsible for that portion"}
{"id":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd1a01b-5685-4d79-837f-ddc2b7d88236","slug":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032","title":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352509/buckwalter-blum-v-blum-no-fa-92-0308964s-nov-4-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352509","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-04","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s, therefore, that his earning capacity will shortly be significantly decreased. He has been the financial provider during the entire marriage. The husband entered this marriage with assets including a house (the marital residence), shares of IBM stock, and pension benefits from IBM. At that time, he had been employed by IBM for 13 years. The wife testified that she devoted full time to renovating the house and that she contributed much expertise and labor to enhance the value of the home. The husband claimed that he also contributed his labor and was responsible for the payment of materials and supplies and CT Page"}
{"id":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"dbd1a01b-5685-4d79-837f-ddc2b7d88236","slug":"dorothy-buckwalter-blum-v-harold-blum-3348032","title":"Dorothy Buckwalter-Blum v. Harold Blum","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352509/buckwalter-blum-v-blum-no-fa-92-0308964s-nov-4-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352509","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-04","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all transfer to the wife, free and clear of any liens, one half of the shares of stock that he owns in IBM. The tax refund for the year 1991 shall be divided equally by the parties. The wife shall receive 22% of the husband's pension benefits. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter giving to the wife said 22% interest therein. CT Page 9559 The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $20,000.00 for her share in the Tax Deferred Savings Plan accumulated from the earnings of the husband. Each party shall retain the motor vehicle shown on his or her financial affidavit and each party shall be responsible for that portion"}
{"id":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4a4c37b-fb4b-4212-a04e-443a9bc7c6fd","slug":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375","title":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330875/funteral-fine-v-fine-no-fa98-0063294s-mar-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330875","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine Date: 1999-03-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4a4c37b-fb4b-4212-a04e-443a9bc7c6fd","slug":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375","title":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330875/funteral-fine-v-fine-no-fa98-0063294s-mar-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330875","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4a4c37b-fb4b-4212-a04e-443a9bc7c6fd","slug":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375","title":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330875/funteral-fine-v-fine-no-fa98-0063294s-mar-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330875","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ll receive one-half of any amount by which the defendants 401(k) plan increased during the period of this marriage and as of December 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of the 401(K) shall be the sole property of the defendant and the plaintiff shall have no claim thereto. LIFE INSURANCE The defendant shall continue to maintain the $90,000 life insurance policy as is available through his employment, with the minor child named as beneficiary thereon, for so long as the d"}
{"id":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4a4c37b-fb4b-4212-a04e-443a9bc7c6fd","slug":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375","title":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330875/funteral-fine-v-fine-no-fa98-0063294s-mar-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330875","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he plaintiff at his sole cost and expense as is available through his employment for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry, whichever event shall first occur. The cost of COBRA coverage at this time is $181 per month. PENSION/401(k) The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendants 401(k) plan increased during the period of this marriage and as of December 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of the 401(K) shall"}
{"id":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f4a4c37b-fb4b-4212-a04e-443a9bc7c6fd","slug":"doryce-funteral-fine-v-steven-b-fine-3326375","title":"Doryce Funteral-Fine v. Steven B. Fine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330875/funteral-fine-v-fine-no-fa98-0063294s-mar-17-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330875","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-17","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tiff at his sole cost and expense as is available through his employment for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry, whichever event shall first occur. The cost of COBRA coverage at this time is $181 per month. PENSION/401(k) The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendants 401(k) plan increased during the period of this marriage and as of December 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of the 401(K) shall be the"}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig Date: 1995-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 3,587.00. The Court would order that those assets will be retained by the parties, as shown in their respective financial affidavits. The plaintiff's pension was earned during the course of the marriage and is an asset of the marriage and the Court orders a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be prepared dividing the proceeds of the pension, and it be submitted to the Court for CT Page 7631 approval. The Court will retain jurisdiction over said Order. Each party shall be entitled to receive any beneficiary benefits from the pension from his or her share of the pension if the other dies. This is based upon the pension being evenly split between t"}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 45. There is also three CD's in the wife's name at Dutch Point Credit Union in the approximately amount of $3,587.00. The Court would order that those assets will be retained by the parties, as shown in their respective financial affidavits. The plaintiff's pension was earned during the course of the marriage and is an asset of the marriage and the Court orders a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be prepared dividing the proceeds of the pension, and it be submitted to the Court for CT Page 7631 approval. The Court will retain jurisdiction over said Order. Each party shall be entitled to receive any beneficiary benefi"}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er $18,000 in other investments. Since $39,000 was directly from her mother's estate the Court is not inclined to divide the asset with the husband but would award the total left on the inheritance to the wife plus the other of her investments. There is a CLP 401K in the husband's name in the approximate amount of $70,280.14 and an IRA for $11,543.45. There is also three CD's in the wife's name at Dutch Point Credit Union in the approximately amount of $3,587.00. The Court would order that those assets will be retained by the parties, as shown in their respective financial affidavits. The plaintiff's pension was ea"}
{"id":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b390e11d-9614-4cbc-859c-b2bdf0b7ccbb","slug":"douglas-craig-v-audrey-craig-3342433","title":"Douglas Craig v. Audrey Craig","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346917/craig-v-craig-no-fa-93-0064082-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346917","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The Court would order that those assets will be retained by the parties, as shown in their respective financial affidavits. The plaintiff's pension was earned during the course of the marriage and is an asset of the marriage and the Court orders a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be prepared dividing the proceeds of the pension, and it be submitted to the Court for CT Page 7631 approval. The Court will retain jurisdiction over said Order. Each party shall be entitled to receive any beneficiary benefits from the pension from his or her share of the pension if the other dies. This is based upon the pension being evenly split between t"}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne. Docket: from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o. Date: 2002-03-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch retain their own savings and checking accounts free and clear of the claims of the other party. 11. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff 50% of his pensions with Magna Copper Co. and Cargill, Inc. These transfers are to be effectuated by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders as required by the plan administrators. The defendant shall assist the plaintiff with obtaining all necessary documents from the plan administrators and is ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate this transfer. The court will retain jurisdiction until such time as the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have been approved and the pensions equ"}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nt with Schwab valued at $23,825.16. The CT Page 3315 defendant has an IRA at Salomon Smith Barney with a value of $54,187.50. Some or all of the assets in this IRA are the Nord Resources stock purchased by the defendant. He has an interest in two pensions: a pension from Magma Copper Co. will pay him $1,856.54 at age 65; a pension from Cargill, Inc. will pay him $1,663.48 at age 65. There was no evidence of the present value of these pensions. The defendant has $170,000 of group term life insurance payable to the children as beneficiaries. Additional group life insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000 is prov"}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: their own savings and checking accounts free and clear of the claims of the other party. 11. The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff 50% of his pensions with Magna Copper Co. and Cargill, Inc. These transfers are to be effectuated by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders as required by the plan administrators. The defendant shall assist the plaintiff with obtaining all necessary documents from the plan administrators and is ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate this transfer. The court will retain jurisdiction until such time as the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have been approved and the pensions equ"}
{"id":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f48fcc39-ad20-46c9-9044-5b6730411b6c","slug":"elaine-champagne-v-john-f-champagne-3333893","title":"Elaine Champagne v. John F. Champagne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338387/champagne-v-champagne-no-fa-98-0164250s-mar-13-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338387","extracted_docket_number":"from the Stamford Judicial District. It was tried o","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-03-13","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: it had been paid to him rather than being accrued. It is not fair to the plaintiff that support was paid from marital assets while the defendant can look forward to receiving the accrued salary in the future. The court has taken this into consideration in the property division. The unallocated support payments of $12,000 per month were supposed to be used by the plaintiff to support the children and the family home. It is clear that the plaintiff was not as frugal as she should have been. Her financial affidavit reveals some questionable expenditures. When the plaintiff was receiving $25,000 per month she should have been payin"}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6889b110-a373-4219-9384-ecf0a2a6b5f4","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3363753/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-jan-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3363753","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley Date: 1996-01-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6889b110-a373-4219-9384-ecf0a2a6b5f4","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3363753/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-jan-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3363753","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6889b110-a373-4219-9384-ecf0a2a6b5f4","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3363753/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-jan-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3363753","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mencing on the date the plaintiff begins receiving said amount and continuing for a period of ten years thereafter, except that such alimony will terminate upon the plaintiff's death or remarriage. The plaintiff will obtain said 10% interest by virtue of this Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 8. The defendant will pay support for the minor children in the amount of 40% of the defendant's vested retirement benefits from the State of Connecticut by virtue of this Qualified Domestic Relations Order. By the Court, Aurigemma, J."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6889b110-a373-4219-9384-ecf0a2a6b5f4","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3363753/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-jan-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3363753","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: dated October 11, 1995. The following paragraphs replace the existing paragraphs seven and eight and are incorporated by reference into the existing decision: 7. The defendant will pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of 10% of the defendant's vested retirement benefits from the State of Connecticut for a period of ten years commencing on the date the plaintiff begins receiving said amount and continuing for a period of ten years thereafter, except that such alimony will terminate upon the plaintiff's death or remarriage. The plaintiff will obtain said 10% interest by virtue of this Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 8"}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6889b110-a373-4219-9384-ecf0a2a6b5f4","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3359287","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3363753/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-jan-23-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3363753","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-01-23","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the date the plaintiff begins receiving said amount and continuing for a period of ten years thereafter, except that such alimony will terminate upon the plaintiff's death or remarriage. The plaintiff will obtain said 10% interest by virtue of this Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 8. The defendant will pay support for the minor children in the amount of 40% of the defendant's vested retirement benefits from the State of Connecticut by virtue of this Qualified Domestic Relations Order. By the Court, Aurigemma, J."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley Date: 1995-10-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e a substantial pension from the State of Connecticut within one and one half to two years from this date. In order to insure for the support of the children and the financial well being of the CT Page 11807 plaintiff, it is necessary for the court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a portion of the defendant's pension. The court hereby issues the following orders: 1. A dissolution of the marriage is granted. 2. The Agreement between the parties dated July 27, 1995 concerning custody and visitation is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this judgment. A copy of that Agreement is attached hereto as exhibit A an"}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ote or other obligation which it secures. 5. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from all credit card debt shown on his financial affidavit of July 27, 1995. 6. The defendant is ordered to maintain the plaintiff as the beneficiary of his state retirement benefits until such time as he retires. 7. The defendant is ordered to pay one dollar per year as alimony to the plaintiff until such time as he has fulfilled his obligation to pay and hold the plaintiff wife harmless from the Mortgage referred to in paragraph 4 hereof. 8. The plaintiff will receive as a property settlement 50% of the defendant's vested retirem"}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ntiff did not work outside the home for a substantial portion of the marriage because she was caring for the children. The defendant is now disabled and has no ability to support the children. However, the defendant will be eligible to receive a substantial pension from the State of Connecticut within one and one half to two years from this date. In order to insure for the support of the children and the financial well being of the CT Page 11807 plaintiff, it is necessary for the court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a portion of the defendant's pension. The court hereby issues the following orders"}
{"id":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e5adfb03-6cea-44bd-85df-a5d14b4063da","slug":"elizabeth-b-riley-v-michael-e-riley-3368758","title":"Elizabeth B. Riley v. Michael E. Riley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373217/riley-v-riley-no-0074147-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373217","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntial pension from the State of Connecticut within one and one half to two years from this date. In order to insure for the support of the children and the financial well being of the CT Page 11807 plaintiff, it is necessary for the court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a portion of the defendant's pension. The court hereby issues the following orders: 1. A dissolution of the marriage is granted. 2. The Agreement between the parties dated July 27, 1995 concerning custody and visitation is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this judgment. A copy of that Agreement is attached hereto as exhibit A an"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"411255cb-6c16-48c0-bc0d-ee43d80804f9","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354347/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354347","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer Date: 1996-04-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"411255cb-6c16-48c0-bc0d-ee43d80804f9","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354347/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354347","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"411255cb-6c16-48c0-bc0d-ee43d80804f9","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354347/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354347","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 9. The plaintiff is not awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporation. 12. The real property at 15 Duck Hole Road, Guilford, at 165 Sperry Drive, Guilford, and at 257 Brown"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"411255cb-6c16-48c0-bc0d-ee43d80804f9","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354347/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354347","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s a result of the settlement of the strike at Star Distributors. 9. The plaintiff is not awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporation. 12. The r"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"411255cb-6c16-48c0-bc0d-ee43d80804f9","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3349873","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354347/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354347","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aintiff is not awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporation. 12. The real property at 15 Duck Hole Road, Guilford, at 165 Sperry Drive, Guilford, and at 257 Brown"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24fecac0-04ba-4a77-954e-2a4252389d99","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371222/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371222","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer Date: 1996-04-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24fecac0-04ba-4a77-954e-2a4252389d99","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371222/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371222","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24fecac0-04ba-4a77-954e-2a4252389d99","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371222/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371222","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff is not awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The CT Page 3427-F plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporation. 12. The real property at 15 Duck Hole Road, Guilford, at 165 Sperry Drive, Guilford, and at 257 Brown"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24fecac0-04ba-4a77-954e-2a4252389d99","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371222/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371222","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s a result of the settlement of the strike at Star Distributors. 9. The plaintiff is not awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The CT Page 3427-F plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporati"}
{"id":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24fecac0-04ba-4a77-954e-2a4252389d99","slug":"elizabeth-c-dwyer-v-william-l-dwyer-3366762","title":"Elizabeth C. Dwyer v. William L. Dwyer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371222/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa-95-0377476-apr-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371222","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: awarded any interest in the personal injury claim presently being pursued by the defendant. 10. The plaintiff is awarded one-half the current value of the defendant's pension through the Teamster's Union. The CT Page 3427-F plaintiff shall draft a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant and the plan administrator for their review and to the court for its approval. 11. The defendant is not awarded any interest in the plaintiff's pension from BIC Corporation. 12. The real property at 15 Duck Hole Road, Guilford, at 165 Sperry Drive, Guilford, and at 257 Brown"}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo Date: 1995-10-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lity thereon. The court reserves jurisdiction over any disputes arising over the disposition of this asset. (7) The Pitney Bowes shares of stock owned by the parties shall be equally divided between them. (8) The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interest valued as of August 14, 1995, in his Pitney Bowes Pension Plan and shown and described on the defendant's financial affidavit, and one-hundred (100%) percent of the defendant's Pitney Bowes 401K Plan, also valued as of August 14, 1995. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft said QDROs. The court retains jurisdictio"}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: shares of stock owned by the parties shall be equally divided between them. (8) The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interest valued as of August 14, 1995, in his Pitney Bowes Pension Plan and shown and described on the defendant's financial affidavit, and one-hundred (100%) percent of the defendant's Pitney Bowes 401K Plan, also valued as of August 14, 1995. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft said QDROs. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter to review, approve and modify said CT Page 11310 QDROs to comply with federal and st"}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interest valued as of August 14, 1995, in his Pitney Bowes Pension Plan and shown and described on the defendant's financial affidavit, and one-hundred (100%) percent of the defendant's Pitney Bowes 401K Plan, also valued as of August 14, 1995. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft said QDROs. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter to review, approve and modify said CT Page 11310 QDROs to comply with federal and state law relating to retirement/pension plans. (9) There are United States savings bonds in the possession of the defendant that are reg"}
{"id":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6c81136-baa8-4c44-81cf-819b6cc715ac","slug":"elizabeth-cuozzo-v-pasquale-cuozzo-3343966","title":"Elizabeth Cuozzo v. Pasquale Cuozzo","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348448/cuozzo-v-cuozzo-no-fa94-0140782-s-oct-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-10-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on. The court reserves jurisdiction over any disputes arising over the disposition of this asset. (7) The Pitney Bowes shares of stock owned by the parties shall be equally divided between them. (8) The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interest valued as of August 14, 1995, in his Pitney Bowes Pension Plan and shown and described on the defendant's financial affidavit, and one-hundred (100%) percent of the defendant's Pitney Bowes 401K Plan, also valued as of August 14, 1995. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft said QDROs. The court retains jurisdictio"}
{"id":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d17df3d-a848-41c8-9e75-630acf31eee8","slug":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604","title":"Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333104/banks-v-banks-no-fa92-0294939-s-jan-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333104","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks Date: 1994-01-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d17df3d-a848-41c8-9e75-630acf31eee8","slug":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604","title":"Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333104/banks-v-banks-no-fa92-0294939-s-jan-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333104","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d17df3d-a848-41c8-9e75-630acf31eee8","slug":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604","title":"Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333104/banks-v-banks-no-fa92-0294939-s-jan-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333104","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tiff harmless with respect to this obligation. 9. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff $10,000.00 as a lump sum property settlement. 10. The parties' retirement and profit sharing plans shall be shared equally, and the plaintiff's counsel shall prepare a QDRO to effectuate this order. 11. The wife shall, for as long as it is available to her through her employment, maintain the health insurance for the minor children. All uninsured medical, dental, including orthodontia expenses, and ophthalmological expenses incurred on behalf of the children shall be split equally by the parties. The parties shall specifical"}
{"id":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d17df3d-a848-41c8-9e75-630acf31eee8","slug":"ellen-p-banks-v-david-banks-3328604","title":"Ellen P. Banks v. David Banks","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333104/banks-v-banks-no-fa92-0294939-s-jan-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333104","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): stimating child support the figures for which were not given by either counsel, the court is accepting the figures on the parties' financial affidavits as true. The plaintiff works for the law firm of Cummings Lockwood in Stamford as a specialist in pensions, 401K's, health benefits and the like. She grosses $971.62 a week. She works from 9:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. in Stamford, where she has been working full time since 1988. After the birth of the first child, the plaintiff worked a day and a half a week on a consulting basis. Before the birth of her son, she had worked full time. After the birth of her second son, sh"}
{"id":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47cbbf03-5794-4905-b3e3-3100d04bcc93","slug":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955","title":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370415/danes-v-danes-no-fa96-0136613s-feb-22-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370415","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-22","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes Date: 2000-02-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47cbbf03-5794-4905-b3e3-3100d04bcc93","slug":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955","title":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370415/danes-v-danes-no-fa96-0136613s-feb-22-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370415","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-22","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47cbbf03-5794-4905-b3e3-3100d04bcc93","slug":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955","title":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370415/danes-v-danes-no-fa96-0136613s-feb-22-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370415","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-22","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ance on the 63 Fieldwood property from the date of this decree. The defendant shall hold his 50 percent interest in and to the LuDen Machine Tool Company, Inc. free and clear of all claims of the plaintiff. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order one half of his interest in and to the pension the defendant is entitled to from his employment at CT Page 2330 Waterbury Farrell, which the court finds to be of a value of $19,000. The plaintiff shall retain all her right, title and interest in and to the plaintiff's stock in the May Company, of a value of $3,060, free and clear of all claims of the defe"}
{"id":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47cbbf03-5794-4905-b3e3-3100d04bcc93","slug":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955","title":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370415/danes-v-danes-no-fa96-0136613s-feb-22-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370415","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-22","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ndant shall hold his 50 percent interest in and to the LuDen Machine Tool Company, Inc. free and clear of all claims of the plaintiff. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order one half of his interest in and to the pension the defendant is entitled to from his employment at CT Page 2330 Waterbury Farrell, which the court finds to be of a value of $19,000. The plaintiff shall retain all her right, title and interest in and to the plaintiff's stock in the May Company, of a value of $3,060, free and clear of all claims of the defendant. The defendant shall purchase or mainta"}
{"id":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47cbbf03-5794-4905-b3e3-3100d04bcc93","slug":"eugenia-danes-v-lubomir-danes-3365955","title":"Eugenia Danes v. Lubomir Danes","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370415/danes-v-danes-no-fa96-0136613s-feb-22-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370415","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-22","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e 63 Fieldwood property from the date of this decree. The defendant shall hold his 50 percent interest in and to the LuDen Machine Tool Company, Inc. free and clear of all claims of the plaintiff. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order one half of his interest in and to the pension the defendant is entitled to from his employment at CT Page 2330 Waterbury Farrell, which the court finds to be of a value of $19,000. The plaintiff shall retain all her right, title and interest in and to the plaintiff's stock in the May Company, of a value of $3,060, free and clear of all claims of the defe"}
{"id":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8520834-b8ed-4fee-8060-38abf1696da6","slug":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331","title":"Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362796/forcier-v-forcier-no-fa96-053549s-jan-7-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362796","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-07","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier Date: 1997-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8520834-b8ed-4fee-8060-38abf1696da6","slug":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331","title":"Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362796/forcier-v-forcier-no-fa96-053549s-jan-7-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362796","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-07","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8520834-b8ed-4fee-8060-38abf1696da6","slug":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331","title":"Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362796/forcier-v-forcier-no-fa96-053549s-jan-7-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362796","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-07","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e defendant, the plaintiff's remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute, whichever event shall first occur. CT Page 607 PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension as of December 31, 1996, to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The plaintiff claims to have withdrawn any amounts she would have been entitled to from her pension plan at Chevron. In the event there are any funds remaining, they shall be the sole property of the plaintiff. In the event the plaintiff is entitled to any pension benefits from Chevron (her former employer) said benefits shall be considered at the tim"}
{"id":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8520834-b8ed-4fee-8060-38abf1696da6","slug":"evelyn-forcier-v-gene-forcier-3358331","title":"Evelyn Forcier v. Gene Forcier","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362796/forcier-v-forcier-no-fa96-053549s-jan-7-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362796","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-07","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to the term and amount of alimony ten years from date. Alimony shall terminate sooner on the death of the plaintiff, the death of the defendant, the plaintiff's remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute, whichever event shall first occur. CT Page 607 PENSION 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension as of December 31, 1996, to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The plaintiff claims to have withdrawn any amounts she would have been entitled to from her pension plan at Chevron. In the event there are any funds remaining, they shall be the sole property of the plaintiff. In the event"}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha. Date: 2002-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: aintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and cost of any said document. The court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes with respect to this transfer. To the extent necessary, the plaintiff husband shall provide and pay for the cost of any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in order to effectuate the provisions of this paragraph. 10. PERSONAL PROPERTY . The defendant shall have title to, and the right to possession of, all the contents of the marital home except for the plaintiff's personal belongings, weight lifting equipment, clothing, computer, grill, records, photo albums, pictures, books, and safe. Tools, lawn ma"}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property. The plaintiff shall accept any offer within five percent of the listing price. The plaintiff husband shall not, as of the date of this decision, withdraw any further monies on or from the second mortgage/home equity loan if such is available. 9. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS . The defendant shall receive the two retirement accounts as set forth in the husband's financial affidavit. The plaintiff shall pay and execute any documentation necessary to accomplish this transfer, and the plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and cost of any said document. The court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes with r"}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): essure, is in good health. The plaintiff moved to the United States in January, 1980. In 1994, when the defendant moved here to join the plaintiff, she had virtually no belongings. At this time, the plaintiff owned some personal property, a car, had a small 401k account at Fleet Bank, and a small amount of debt. The defendant is 37 years of age and in good health. The plaintiff husband, prior to the defendant coming to America, received a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting at the University of Bridgeport and a Masters in Business Administration at the University of New Haven. The defendant wife earned a tea"}
{"id":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2edd61d9-b695-4e65-b49b-ab52d2ff50ae","slug":"felix-oguagha-v-anthonia-oguagha-3365490","title":"Felix Oguagha v. Anthonia Oguagha.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369950/oguagha-v-oguagha-no-fa00-037-89-45-s-jan-7-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369950","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-07","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all be responsible for the preparation and cost of any said document. The court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes with respect to this transfer. To the extent necessary, the plaintiff husband shall provide and pay for the cost of any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in order to effectuate the provisions of this paragraph. 10. PERSONAL PROPERTY . The defendant shall have title to, and the right to possession of, all the contents of the marital home except for the plaintiff's personal belongings, weight lifting equipment, clothing, computer, grill, records, photo albums, pictures, books, and safe. Tools, lawn ma"}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero Docket: 501418. The. Date: 1995-12-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ealth insurance shall be paid by her. 7. The defendant shall maintain $200,000 of insurance on his life for the benefit of the plaintiff for as long as the defendant is obligated to pay periodic alimony. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), fifty (50%) percent of his qualified pension benefits from Saint Raphael's Hospital, valued as of December 31, 1995, which shall include any accrued interest or other accretions to the plan accumulated and to be credited to it for the calendar year 1995. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant CT Pa"}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Fidelity Investment account number 4089968; All American contract number C999 AQA 14234403(b) tax sheltered annuity; Mutual Beneficial Life account; the balance of his Paul Revere Annuity Contract in the approximate amount of $61,000; his Lenox Hill Hospital retirement account; his bank accounts and automobile. 14. The plaintiff shall retain the contents of the marital CT Page 13526 residence except for the following items which shall be delivered or made available to the defendant within thirty days: the defendant's tools, (including a ten inch radial saw); his personal effects; his memorabilia; two picture frames; vase; prism"}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of insurance on his life for the benefit of the plaintiff for as long as the defendant is obligated to pay periodic alimony. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), fifty (50%) percent of his qualified pension benefits from Saint Raphael's Hospital, valued as of December 31, 1995, which shall include any accrued interest or other accretions to the plan accumulated and to be credited to it for the calendar year 1995. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant CT Page 13525 shall do nothing to impair said plan, or wit"}
{"id":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d49ded6d-036c-499a-a688-20ae1013cdf0","slug":"frances-reguero-v-wilfred-reguero-3342705","title":"Frances Reguero v. Wilfred Reguero","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347189/reguero-v-reguero-no-fa94-0140531-s-dec-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347189","extracted_docket_number":"501418. The","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rance shall be paid by her. 7. The defendant shall maintain $200,000 of insurance on his life for the benefit of the plaintiff for as long as the defendant is obligated to pay periodic alimony. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), fifty (50%) percent of his qualified pension benefits from Saint Raphael's Hospital, valued as of December 31, 1995, which shall include any accrued interest or other accretions to the plan accumulated and to be credited to it for the calendar year 1995. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant CT Pa"}
{"id":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c322ff4-3abc-4b7f-bd96-a60a9dc9bee2","slug":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212","title":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355685/robinson-v-robinson-no-fa01-0073012s-may-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson. Date: 2002-05-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c322ff4-3abc-4b7f-bd96-a60a9dc9bee2","slug":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212","title":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355685/robinson-v-robinson-no-fa01-0073012s-may-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c322ff4-3abc-4b7f-bd96-a60a9dc9bee2","slug":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212","title":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355685/robinson-v-robinson-no-fa01-0073012s-may-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed to be $31,111,31). Said transfers are to be pursuant to rollovers or other appropriate non-taxable transfer instrument. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife 50% interest in his union pension (represented to be $1,118.00 per month at age 65) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which he shall cause to be prepared. Until the transfers are accomplished within a reasonable period of time, the court shall retain jurisdiction. CHILDREN'S BANK ACCOUNTS AND STOCK PORTFOLIO The agreement of the parties dated May 2, 2002, on file, concerning the children's assets was reviewed by the court and is incorporated herein by reference. LIAB"}
{"id":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c322ff4-3abc-4b7f-bd96-a60a9dc9bee2","slug":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212","title":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355685/robinson-v-robinson-no-fa01-0073012s-may-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ld coins and silver bars 1,000.00 • Post Office bonds 5,000.00 • N.Y. Life Insurance CSV 14,000.00 • Post Office TDSP (wife) 24,501.37 • IA Annuity (husband) 34,986.37 • Local Annuity (husband) 31,111.31 • Union Pension ($1118.00/mo/age 65) — • 69 Corvette 3,000.00 • 77 C Gull Boat 500.00 • burial plots 2,500.00 • tax refund 5,500.00 TOTAL ASSETS $278,439.05 The Wife listed no liabilities on her financial affidavit but the Husband showed $13,100.00 in miscellaneous credit card debt. It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle t"}
{"id":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3c322ff4-3abc-4b7f-bd96-a60a9dc9bee2","slug":"francine-robinson-v-donald-robinson-3351212","title":"Francine Robinson v. Donald Robinson.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355685/robinson-v-robinson-no-fa01-0073012s-may-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355685","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-05-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 31,111,31). Said transfers are to be pursuant to rollovers or other appropriate non-taxable transfer instrument. The Husband shall transfer to the Wife 50% interest in his union pension (represented to be $1,118.00 per month at age 65) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which he shall cause to be prepared. Until the transfers are accomplished within a reasonable period of time, the court shall retain jurisdiction. CHILDREN'S BANK ACCOUNTS AND STOCK PORTFOLIO The agreement of the parties dated May 2, 2002, on file, concerning the children's assets was reviewed by the court and is incorporated herein by reference. LIAB"}
{"id":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb21311f-4213-42e9-8402-c02b08e58a0a","slug":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608","title":"Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347092/luca-v-luca-no-fa93-0244478-sep-26-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347092","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-26","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca Date: 1995-09-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb21311f-4213-42e9-8402-c02b08e58a0a","slug":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608","title":"Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347092/luca-v-luca-no-fa93-0244478-sep-26-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347092","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-26","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb21311f-4213-42e9-8402-c02b08e58a0a","slug":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608","title":"Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347092/luca-v-luca-no-fa93-0244478-sep-26-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347092","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-26","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n as of August 28, 1993. Any and all increase in the future vested value of this pension resulting from the ongoing and future employment of plaintiff since August 28, 1993, shall accrue to plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to execute and deliver to defendant a QDRO in the sum of $4,083.33. e. A credit of $4000 against the Employee Savings Plan of plaintiff estimated to be $12,500 as of September 19, 1995. This credit plus a further credit of $565 based on a recalculation of defendant's support arrearage is to be credited against the joint obligations of the parties as of August 28, 1993, arising from Visa and Discov"}
{"id":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cb21311f-4213-42e9-8402-c02b08e58a0a","slug":"francis-luca-v-cynthia-luca-3342608","title":"Francis Luca v. Cynthia Luca","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347092/luca-v-luca-no-fa93-0244478-sep-26-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347092","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-26","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: To the defendant: a. A 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse automobile; b. All Dime Saving and Checking accounts in her name; c. All Department 56 collectible items presently in her possession; d. A one-third (1/3) interest in the present value of the plaintiff's pension with his employer, United Technologies, based on the value of this pension as of August 28, 1993. Any and all increase in the future vested value of this pension resulting from the ongoing and future employment of plaintiff since August 28, 1993, shall accrue to plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to execute and deliver to defendant a QDRO in the sum of $4,083."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino Date: 1990-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: expenses of the defendant. 5. The defendant wife is hereby awarded the maximum survivor annuity benefit available under the husband's Sargent retirement benefits. Defendant's counsel shall inform the plan administrator of the Court's award, and prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which may be necessary. The court retains jurisdiction over the same. CT Page 3814 6. The personal property in the marital home is awarded to the defendant. By the Court: Elaine Gordon, Judge."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: d by law. Each party shall be responsible for one half the non-insured non-reimbursed psychiatric and psychological expenses of the defendant. 5. The defendant wife is hereby awarded the maximum survivor annuity benefit available under the husband's Sargent retirement benefits. Defendant's counsel shall inform the plan administrator of the Court's award, and prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which may be necessary. The court retains jurisdiction over the same. CT Page 3814 6. The personal property in the marital home is awarded to the defendant. By the Court: Elaine Gordon, Judge."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: of the defendant. 5. The defendant wife is hereby awarded the maximum survivor annuity benefit available under the husband's Sargent retirement benefits. Defendant's counsel shall inform the plan administrator of the Court's award, and prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which may be necessary. The court retains jurisdiction over the same. CT Page 3814 6. The personal property in the marital home is awarded to the defendant. By the Court: Elaine Gordon, Judge."}
{"id":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"851a7d69-ccd1-4414-bc77-1090d3803961","slug":"frederick-k-depino-v-linda-depino-3349325","title":"Frederick K. Depino v. Linda Depino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353801/depino-v-depino-no-29-05-13-nov-7-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353801","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-11-07","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: are available through his employment for the full period allowed by law. Each party shall be responsible for one half the non-insured non-reimbursed psychiatric and psychological expenses of the defendant. 5. The defendant wife is hereby awarded the maximum survivor annuity benefit available under the husband's Sargent retirement benefits. Defendant's counsel shall inform the plan administrator of the Court's award, and prepare any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which may be necessary. The court retains jurisdiction over the same. CT Page 3814 6. The personal property in the marital home is awarded to the defendant. B"}
{"id":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1505454f-7327-4e33-acdd-a7d454532221","slug":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699","title":"Fulgium v. Fulgium","citation":"240 Md. App. 269","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10021098/fulgium-v-fulgium/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10021098","extracted_docket_number":"CAD16-32242 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"240 Md. App. 269","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-02-27","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Fulgium v. Fulgium Citation: 240 Md. App. 269. Extracted reporter citation: 240 Md. App. 269. Docket: CAD16-32242 REPORTED. Date: 2019-02-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Fulgium v. Fulgium is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1505454f-7327-4e33-acdd-a7d454532221","slug":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699","title":"Fulgium v. Fulgium","citation":"240 Md. App. 269","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10021098/fulgium-v-fulgium/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10021098","extracted_docket_number":"CAD16-32242 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"240 Md. App. 269","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-02-27","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1505454f-7327-4e33-acdd-a7d454532221","slug":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699","title":"Fulgium v. Fulgium","citation":"240 Md. App. 269","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10021098/fulgium-v-fulgium/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10021098","extracted_docket_number":"CAD16-32242 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"240 Md. App. 269","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-02-27","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: from a divorce action between Amy Fulgium, appellant, and Christopher Fulgium, appellee. On July 31, 2017, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County issued a Judgment of Absolute Divorce and a Constituted Pension Order relating to Mr. Fulgium's military retirement benefits. On appeal, Ms. Fulgium challenges only the award of military retirement benefits. In that regard, she presents five questions for this Court's review,1 which we have consolidated and rephrased, as follows: 1. Did the circuit court err in incorrectly calculating Ms. Fulgium's marital share of Mr. Fulgium's military pension? 1 Ms. Fulgium presents"}
{"id":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1505454f-7327-4e33-acdd-a7d454532221","slug":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699","title":"Fulgium v. Fulgium","citation":"240 Md. App. 269","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10021098/fulgium-v-fulgium/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10021098","extracted_docket_number":"CAD16-32242 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"240 Md. App. 269","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-02-27","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Amy Fulgium v. Christopher Fulgium, No. 1753, September Term, 2017 UNIFORMED SERVICES FORMER SPOUSES' PROTECTION ACT; MARITAL SHARE OF A MILITARY PENSION Military pensions may be considered divisible marital property \"[s]ubject to the limitations\" of 10 U.S.C. § 1408. These limitations include that only \"disposable retired pay\" may be considered marital property, and the benefit is frozen at the time of divorce, as opposed to the time of retirement. Thus, under § 1408(a)(4), when there is a final decree of"}
{"id":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1505454f-7327-4e33-acdd-a7d454532221","slug":"fulgium-v-fulgium-10487699","title":"Fulgium v. Fulgium","citation":"240 Md. App. 269","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10021098/fulgium-v-fulgium/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10021098","extracted_docket_number":"CAD16-32242 REPORTED","extracted_reporter_citation":"240 Md. App. 269","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-02-27","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: . Fulgium's retired base pay is $56,536.72 following 17 years, 19 [sic] months of credible service. That, to date, Mr. Fulgium's annual payout in accordance with that 215 months of service is at an annual rate of $25,300.18. [Ms.] Fulgium should be awarded marital portion of pension as had accrued on the date of this order using that formula. In response to the circuit court's oral ruling, counsel for Ms. Fulgium asked the court to clarify whether it awarded Ms. Fulgium 50% of Mr. Fulgium's disposable military pay or 15%. The following colloquy between the court and counsel for Ms. Fulgium ensued: THE COURT: Fifteen."}
{"id":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8793773c-6656-4d9b-9a9c-6601198ccb77","slug":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193","title":"Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338686/rimkus-v-rimkus-no-fa98-0062482s-feb-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338686","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus Date: 2000-02-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8793773c-6656-4d9b-9a9c-6601198ccb77","slug":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193","title":"Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338686/rimkus-v-rimkus-no-fa98-0062482s-feb-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338686","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8793773c-6656-4d9b-9a9c-6601198ccb77","slug":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193","title":"Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338686/rimkus-v-rimkus-no-fa98-0062482s-feb-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338686","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lights j. miscellaneous tools and drill press k. his tapes and guns PENSION PLANS 1. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of his Qualified pension plan with Allied Signal, valued as of the date of dissolution, by means of a QDRO. 2. The defendant shall bear the cost of the preparation of the QDRO which shall be drafted within 30 days hereof. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes over the QDRO. PROPERTY SETTLEMENT 1. By way of a lump sum property settlement, the plaintiff shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the following remaining assets and deferred co"}
{"id":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8793773c-6656-4d9b-9a9c-6601198ccb77","slug":"gail-rimkus-v-alfred-rimkus-3334193","title":"Gail Rimkus v. Alfred Rimkus","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338686/rimkus-v-rimkus-no-fa98-0062482s-feb-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338686","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ely $784 per week. The defendant does extensive out of the country travel for his company at which time the company pays for all his living and travel expenses. The marriage went downhill over the past ten years. The defendant was able to amass considerable pension accounts and mutual funds accounts totaling in excess of $200,000. The parties own their home at 300 Housatonic Drive, Milford and have agreed that the equity in this home is $133,900. The plaintiff filed bankruptcy in April 1999 and discharged substantial credit card debt. No useful purpose would be served by a review of the evidence presented in this ma"}
{"id":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f282d8f5-898a-4ff9-b987-5371aa503b16","slug":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073","title":"Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350550/sagen-v-sagen-no-107427-mar-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350550","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen Date: 1998-03-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f282d8f5-898a-4ff9-b987-5371aa503b16","slug":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073","title":"Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350550/sagen-v-sagen-no-107427-mar-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350550","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f282d8f5-898a-4ff9-b987-5371aa503b16","slug":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073","title":"Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350550/sagen-v-sagen-no-107427-mar-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350550","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tally responsible for the rent and/or mortgage, upkeep maintenance and he's providing the home for the kids. CT Page 9721 Regarding the IRA accounts. The IRA accounts are divided 60 percent to Mr. Sagen, 40 percent to Ms. Sagen. Any documents, including the qualified domestic relations order or directions to a controlling administrator or bank shall be prepared by counsel for Mr. Sagen and presented to the Court for signature. The attorney for the minor child is awarded counsel fees in accordance with the State schedule and he can present the forms, the appropriate forms, to me and I will sign them for forwarding to the State. Each of the parti"}
{"id":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f282d8f5-898a-4ff9-b987-5371aa503b16","slug":"gary-sagen-v-carolyn-sagen-3346073","title":"Gary Sagen v. Carolyn Sagen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350550/sagen-v-sagen-no-107427-mar-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350550","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: onsible for the rent and/or mortgage, upkeep maintenance and he's providing the home for the kids. CT Page 9721 Regarding the IRA accounts. The IRA accounts are divided 60 percent to Mr. Sagen, 40 percent to Ms. Sagen. Any documents, including the qualified domestic relations order or directions to a controlling administrator or bank shall be prepared by counsel for Mr. Sagen and presented to the Court for signature. The attorney for the minor child is awarded counsel fees in accordance with the State schedule and he can present the forms, the appropriate forms, to me and I will sign them for forwarding to the State. Each of the parti"}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young Date: 1996-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Gary Young v. Colleen Young is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff's name are awarded to the plaintiff. 8. All bank accounts in the defendant's name are awarded to the defendant. 9. The two deferred compensation plans shown on the defendant's financial affidavit are ordered to be divided equally between the parties by QDRO. 10. The three deferred compensation plans on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, namely, the VFTC money purchase pension plan, the VFTC profit sharing retirement plan, and the VFTC IRA are ordered to be divided equally between the parties by QDRO. 11. All of the liabilities shown on the supplemental page 2 of the defendant's financial affidavit, excep"}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Some of the furniture was paid for in cash and some by credit card. The plaintiff has various deferred compensation plans. The following represents the correct balances on those plans: 1. VFTC money purchased pension $111,645.55; 2. VFTC profit-sharing retirement plan $81,821.54; and 3. VFTC IRA $9,565.22. The deferred compensation plan shown with VFTC is with Vanguard Fiduciary Trust. The plaintiff claims that he has overpaid the defendant $1000 since a pendente lite order was entered and seeks a credit for that amount. The plaintiff's financial affidavit shows gross weekly income of $3538.15 and a net weekly in"}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ince the date he vacated the family residence. Some of the furniture was paid for in cash and some by credit card. The plaintiff has various deferred compensation plans. The following represents the correct balances on those plans: 1. VFTC money purchased pension $111,645.55; 2. VFTC profit-sharing retirement plan $81,821.54; and 3. VFTC IRA $9,565.22. The deferred compensation plan shown with VFTC is with Vanguard Fiduciary Trust. The plaintiff claims that he has overpaid the defendant $1000 since a pendente lite order was entered and seeks a credit for that amount. The plaintiff's financial affidavit sho"}
{"id":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c304d61b-9188-473d-ab99-5c9ab993e30e","slug":"gary-young-v-colleen-young-3339827","title":"Gary Young v. Colleen Young","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344312/young-v-young-no-32-08-19-nov-7-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-11-07","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e present dissolution action, he gave the defendant $3000 to apply towards her legal fees. The court has considered the provision of § 46b-82 regarding the issues of alimony, and has considered the provision of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issues of property division, and has considered the provision of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody and joint custody and visitation, and has considered the provision of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provision of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney fees. The court enters the"}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall. Date: 1992-06-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: entitled to credit or reimbursement of any sums so paid. The plaintiff shall be entitled to and is hereby awarded $390. per month of the defendant's pension and the defendant shall prepare and execute the necessary documents so that this order may become a qualified domestic relations order and vest that portion of the pension with the plaintiff wife. G. To the extent that it is necessary to withdraw money from the SNET Management Savings Plan ($20,000) and to the extent that capital gains tax liability may arise from the transfer of the shares of stock in SNET, the plaintiff shall be liable for 1/2 the income tax liability due to the Federa"}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 80. e. Two IRA accounts — one for each party totaling $5,468. f. 1986 Nissan Stanza automobile value approximately $5,000. g. 1984 Subaru GL Wagon value approximately $1,000. h. A parcel of land at Port Charlotte, Florida value $3,000. i. SNET Pension Plan — present value undetermined. 11. The parties have stipulated and agreed to joint custody of the two minor children with their primary residence to be with the defendant father and the plaintiff mother to have liberal rights of visitation. The defendant father has waived any claim to child support by the plaintiff mother and the plaintiff has w"}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): mately $9,500 and would be far in excess of his tax liability. It should be noted that in the last three years the parties have received tax refunds of $1,500 to $1,700. In addition the defendant has $85. per week taken out of his pay on a voluntary basis for 401K Plan. His actual net pay is somewhere between $600 and $700. per week. 10. The parties have a number of assets which are as follows: a. The jointly owned marital residence which the parties stipulated has a value of $220,000. and is subject to a mortgage of $37,000. leaving equity of $183,000. b. SNET Management Savings Plan in the amount of $107,961."}
{"id":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0ccecc1-d134-42e8-8413-cdff8bd5a369","slug":"gayle-e-crandall-v-charles-g-crandall-3365994","title":"Gayle E. Crandall v. Charles G. Crandall.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370454/crandall-v-crandall-no-60249-jun-16-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370454","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-06-16","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: to credit or reimbursement of any sums so paid. The plaintiff shall be entitled to and is hereby awarded $390. per month of the defendant's pension and the defendant shall prepare and execute the necessary documents so that this order may become a qualified domestic relations order and vest that portion of the pension with the plaintiff wife. G. To the extent that it is necessary to withdraw money from the SNET Management Savings Plan ($20,000) and to the extent that capital gains tax liability may arise from the transfer of the shares of stock in SNET, the plaintiff shall be liable for 1/2 the income tax liability due to the Federa"}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato. Date: 2000-06-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nterest at 6% per annum, said interest and principal payable on or before July 1, 2001. Said note is to be secured by a mortgage on said property, which mortgage shall contain the usual covenants. 4. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order $32,500.00 from her Agway Thrift Savings and Investment Plan by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by other means to avoid any tax to either party. Further, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff any interest she may have in a Metropolitan Life Insurance policy, which presently has a cash value of approximately $3,500.00. If the defenda"}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: property is subject to liens of $13,000.00. During the marriage the plaintiff received an undivided one-half interest in 16 West Street, Westerly, Rhode Island from his mother. Presently said one-half interest is valued at $67,500.00. The plaintiff has a retirement plan at Electric Boat valued presently at $9,368.00, a Connecticut Community Credit Union checking account of $1,000.00 and a 1987 Toyota Camry valued at $1,000.00. The defendant has three credit union accounts totaling $1,926.00; an CT Page 7679 Agway Thrift Plan valued at $50,652.00; an IRA valued at $1,800.00 and a 2000 Chevrolet with no value because of a"}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the sum of $62,500.00 with said interest and payment date as is provided for in said paragraph 3. 5. Each party shall retain the IRA presently in their individual names. 6. The plaintiff shall keep, free of any claim from the defendant, his Electric Boat pension. CT Page 7680 7. The defendant shall keep, free of any claim by the plaintiff, the credit union accounts, and the Connecticut Community Credit Union Checking account listed on her financial affidavit. 8. Each party shall keep, as their own, the automobile listed on their respective financial affidavits subject to any loans thereon and hold the other har"}
{"id":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b5b00159-4728-4766-b194-782534fc3b33","slug":"gene-delicato-v-barbara-delicato-3368114","title":"Gene Delicato v. Barbara Delicato.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372574/delicato-v-delicato-no-0549379-jun-23-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372574","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-23","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 6% per annum, said interest and principal payable on or before July 1, 2001. Said note is to be secured by a mortgage on said property, which mortgage shall contain the usual covenants. 4. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order $32,500.00 from her Agway Thrift Savings and Investment Plan by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by other means to avoid any tax to either party. Further, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff any interest she may have in a Metropolitan Life Insurance policy, which presently has a cash value of approximately $3,500.00. If the defenda"}
{"id":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896322ba-fb16-4952-849b-cb87dace9950","slug":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759","title":"Gerving v. Gerving","citation":"2020 ND 116","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759412/gerving-v-gerving/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759412","extracted_docket_number":"20190253","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 116","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gerving v. Gerving Citation: 2020 ND 116. Extracted reporter citation: 2020 ND 116. Docket: 20190253. Date: 2020-06-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Gerving v. Gerving is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896322ba-fb16-4952-849b-cb87dace9950","slug":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759","title":"Gerving v. Gerving","citation":"2020 ND 116","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759412/gerving-v-gerving/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759412","extracted_docket_number":"20190253","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 116","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896322ba-fb16-4952-849b-cb87dace9950","slug":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759","title":"Gerving v. Gerving","citation":"2020 ND 116","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759412/gerving-v-gerving/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759412","extracted_docket_number":"20190253","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 116","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ceeds. Janet is receiving $96,000 in payments over the next sixteen (16) years and approximately $67,500 more in retirement, amounting to an award of $163,500 to offset the farming operation award to Ben. Each party was awarded their personal possessions, retirement accounts, and individual credit card debt. [¶11] This was a long-term marriage, which produced two children, and there was evidence both parties contributed to the marriage and the farming operation. Evidence established both parties have full time jobs off the farm and both parties have worked on and contributed to the farming operation. Evidence established Ben"}
{"id":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896322ba-fb16-4952-849b-cb87dace9950","slug":"gerving-v-gerving-4539759","title":"Gerving v. Gerving","citation":"2020 ND 116","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759412/gerving-v-gerving/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759412","extracted_docket_number":"20190253","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 116","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: judgment incorporating the terms of the agreement. [¶4] In May 2019, a bench trial was held on the remaining issues, including distribution of the marital estate and spousal support. The district court found the length of the marriage would support an equal property division, but other factors had to be weighed, including that Ben Gerving acquired the real property and farm prior to the marriage, that he lived and worked on the farm his entire life, and that he did most of the work on the farm. The court concluded Ben Gerving should be awarded the family farm, homestead, equipment, animals, and the accompanying debt. The court"}
{"id":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55ce0fb9-644b-4c24-848c-09da7ca86734","slug":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682","title":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352159/frosceno-v-frosceno-no-fa98-062634-feb-2-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352159","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-02","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno Date: 1999-02-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55ce0fb9-644b-4c24-848c-09da7ca86734","slug":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682","title":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352159/frosceno-v-frosceno-no-fa98-062634-feb-2-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352159","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-02","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55ce0fb9-644b-4c24-848c-09da7ca86734","slug":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682","title":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352159/frosceno-v-frosceno-no-fa98-062634-feb-2-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352159","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-02","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tiff. 5) The plaintiff shall be entitled to all proceeds from his workmen's compensation claim. CT Page 1042 PENSION SAVINGS 1) The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's pension valued as of this date, which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall cooperate in executing the proper documents to effectuate the QDRO. 2) The plaintiff shall be entitled to his 401(k) plan. DEBTS 1) The plaintiff shall be responsible for the balance of the debt owed to the Yale New Haven Hospital. 2) Each party shall be responsible for one-half of the orthodontia bill incurred by the minor child"}
{"id":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55ce0fb9-644b-4c24-848c-09da7ca86734","slug":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682","title":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352159/frosceno-v-frosceno-no-fa98-062634-feb-2-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352159","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-02","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ing equipment. 4) The plaintiff shall be entitled to whatever extra pots and pans, linens and dishware the defendant chooses to give to the plaintiff. 5) The plaintiff shall be entitled to all proceeds from his workmen's compensation claim. CT Page 1042 PENSION SAVINGS 1) The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's pension valued as of this date, which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall cooperate in executing the proper documents to effectuate the QDRO. 2) The plaintiff shall be entitled to his 401(k) plan. DEBTS 1) The plaintiff shall be responsible for the balance of the"}
{"id":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"55ce0fb9-644b-4c24-848c-09da7ca86734","slug":"gregg-frosceno-v-lynn-frosceno-3347682","title":"Gregg Frosceno v. Lynn Frosceno","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352159/frosceno-v-frosceno-no-fa98-062634-feb-2-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352159","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-02","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): efendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's pension valued as of this date, which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall cooperate in executing the proper documents to effectuate the QDRO. 2) The plaintiff shall be entitled to his 401(k) plan. DEBTS 1) The plaintiff shall be responsible for the balance of the debt owed to the Yale New Haven Hospital. 2) Each party shall be responsible for one-half of the orthodontia bill incurred by the minor children. 3) Each party shall be responsible for one half of the balance due on the ATT Visa Card and the indebtedness owed to the Fleet Bank."}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter Date: 1996-10-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y for the child's education, and such expenditures shall be agreed upon in writing by both parties. 12. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant 50% of the plaintiff's pension at Pitney Bowes valued as of this date. Such transfer shall be executed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff's attorney shall be responsible for preparing such order. The court retains jurisdiction to effectuate such transfer. 13. If any deficiencies should be determined in respect of any joint income tax return previously filed by the parties, each party shall bear his or her share of any additional tax, including interest and penalties, attribut"}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he minor child, and $2,400 in Series E savings bonds. These funds shall be used solely for the child's education, and such expenditures shall be agreed upon in writing by both parties. 12. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant 50% of the plaintiff's pension at Pitney Bowes valued as of this date. Such transfer shall be executed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff's attorney shall be responsible for preparing such order. The court retains jurisdiction to effectuate such transfer. 13. If any deficiencies should be determined in respect of any joint income tax return previously filed by the p"}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e exception of the joint People's Bank checking account which is awarded to the plaintiff to be used for payment of family expenses for the month of October, 1996. The remaining property includes the following assets: a. Combustion Credit Union Account b. 401 K — Plaintiff c. Combustion IRA — Plaintiff d. Fidelity IRA — Plaintiff e. Pitney Bowes Stock f. Savings Bonds — Series E g. People's Money Market h. People's CD CT Page 7961 i. 401 K — Defendant j. Combustion IRA — Defendant k. Fidelity IRA — Defendant The present value of these assets is approxim"}
{"id":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"233e4ca4-164f-482c-8901-c84ae392c174","slug":"gregory-smalter-v-nancy-smalter-3326502","title":"Gregory Smalter v. Nancy Smalter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331002/smalter-v-smalter-no-fa95-0148736-s-oct-10-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331002","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-10-10","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: child's education, and such expenditures shall be agreed upon in writing by both parties. 12. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant 50% of the plaintiff's pension at Pitney Bowes valued as of this date. Such transfer shall be executed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff's attorney shall be responsible for preparing such order. The court retains jurisdiction to effectuate such transfer. 13. If any deficiencies should be determined in respect of any joint income tax return previously filed by the parties, each party shall bear his or her share of any additional tax, including interest and penalties, attribut"}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran Date: 1998-05-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e defendant, and a determination as to whether that arrearage, if any, should be paid in full or how that arrearage, if any, should be discharged. 8. The defendant is awarded $7000 from the plaintiff's 401K plan. It is to be transferred to her by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is to prepare the order. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language to be used. The plaintiff is solely responsible for any outstanding loan against his 401K plan, and is to hold the defendant harmless. 9. During the course of the trial, there was evidence that the defendant had paid various expen"}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: spending money in Vietnam. The other $9000 deposited into a checking account. Some of that $9000 was used towards college expenses for both children. The parties are in dispute as to whether the defendant withdrew approximately $15,000 from the plaintiff's retirement plan in 1985 and retained the money. From the evidence presented, the court finds that the defendant did not withdraw that money. As of April 7, 1998, the plaintiff was in arrears in the amount of $6668.84 in his pendente lite payments to the defendant. That amount is subject to adjustments based on the plaintiff's employer withholding money from his pay. Th"}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e. From the evidence presented, the court finds that the plaintiff is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. The plaintiff is forty-six years old. The plaintiff has been to Vietnam on three separate occasions since the parties married. He used his 401K funds, as well as his VISA account, as well as obtaining loans from friends to finance the trips. His first trip was in 1990 where he spent approximately $2000 to purchase a home and furniture for his parents. In January of 1998, he went to Vietnam with a female friend. She has stayed overnight on occasions at his apartment. The plaintiff is presently emp"}
{"id":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a426cb33-496f-4b94-90e2-db5fc134aba6","slug":"hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-3328195","title":"Hai Tran v. Binhminh Tran","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332695/hai-tran-v-binhminh-tran-no-325628-may-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332695","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-05-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: t, and a determination as to whether that arrearage, if any, should be paid in full or how that arrearage, if any, should be discharged. 8. The defendant is awarded $7000 from the plaintiff's 401K plan. It is to be transferred to her by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The defendant is to prepare the order. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language to be used. The plaintiff is solely responsible for any outstanding loan against his 401K plan, and is to hold the defendant harmless. 9. During the course of the trial, there was evidence that the defendant had paid various expen"}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr. Date: 1994-06-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be responsible for capital improvements or replacements. The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000 on August 1, 1996 or upon her vacating the premises, whichever event is the latest to occur. 6. The husband shall assign to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of his pension plan trust valued as of one day prior to his borrowing $13,000 from said plan. Said QDRO shall provide the CT Page 6749 wife a joint and survivor annuity benefit. 7. The husband shall continue to maintain the life insurance policy or policies in existence as of March 29, 1994, naming the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for"}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s. The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000 on August 1, 1996 or upon her vacating the premises, whichever event is the latest to occur. 6. The husband shall assign to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of his pension plan trust valued as of one day prior to his borrowing $13,000 from said plan. Said QDRO shall provide the CT Page 6749 wife a joint and survivor annuity benefit. 7. The husband shall continue to maintain the life insurance policy or policies in existence as of March 29, 1994, naming the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for so long as he is obligated"}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ible for capital improvements or replacements. The husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000 on August 1, 1996 or upon her vacating the premises, whichever event is the latest to occur. 6. The husband shall assign to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of his pension plan trust valued as of one day prior to his borrowing $13,000 from said plan. Said QDRO shall provide the CT Page 6749 wife a joint and survivor annuity benefit. 7. The husband shall continue to maintain the life insurance policy or policies in existence as of March 29, 1994, naming the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for"}
{"id":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8c886bf7-e5cb-47af-8b3d-e290b3b2f6b0","slug":"hannah-m-soboleski-v-john-a-soboleski-jr-3360936","title":"Hannah M. Soboleski v. John A. Soboleski, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365400/soboleski-v-soboleski-no-30-82-44-jun-17-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365400","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-06-17","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ccur. 6. The husband shall assign to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of his pension plan trust valued as of one day prior to his borrowing $13,000 from said plan. Said QDRO shall provide the CT Page 6749 wife a joint and survivor annuity benefit. 7. The husband shall continue to maintain the life insurance policy or policies in existence as of March 29, 1994, naming the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for so long as he is obligated to pay child support. 8. The husband shall take the two younger children as exemptions for federal and/or state income tax purposes. 9. The parties"}
{"id":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08ad689f-e787-4ab1-a715-7a14a16e59e3","slug":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824","title":"Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335320/geloso-v-geloso-no-fa96-0056072s-feb-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335320","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso Date: 1998-02-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08ad689f-e787-4ab1-a715-7a14a16e59e3","slug":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824","title":"Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335320/geloso-v-geloso-no-fa96-0056072s-feb-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335320","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08ad689f-e787-4ab1-a715-7a14a16e59e3","slug":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824","title":"Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335320/geloso-v-geloso-no-fa96-0056072s-feb-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335320","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e defendant, her remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute. SNET SAVINGS PLAN The plaintiff shall transfer and assign to the defendant one-half of his SNET savings plan valued as of September 30, 1996. Said transfer to be accomplished by means of a QDRO. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising as to this CT Page 1351 transfer. It is the court's intention that the defendant receive one-half of this savings at little or no tax consequences to the defendant as well as to the plaintiff. PENSION PLAN The plaintiff shall be entitled to the benefits of his pension plan and the defendant"}
{"id":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"08ad689f-e787-4ab1-a715-7a14a16e59e3","slug":"harry-c-geloso-v-anna-t-geloso-3330824","title":"Harry C. Geloso v. Anna T. Geloso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335320/geloso-v-geloso-no-fa96-0056072s-feb-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335320","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reasonably good health. He has worked close to 20 years with SNET and presently earns approximately $54,600 gross per year. The parties own their home with an equity of approximately $89,000. The husband has a SNET Savings Plan of approximately $100,000; a pension of approximately $92,000; and a lot in Florida valued at between $3,500 and $5,000. There are substantial credit card debts. Since the summer of 1996, the plaintiff has been keeping company with another woman which has led to the breakdown of the marital relationship. Although the plaintiff husband initiated the dissolution action, he has not vacated the"}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt. Date: 2000-04-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f one-half the difference. The Wife is awarded one-half of the monthly benefit from the Husband's UTC Pension Plan, including survivors benefits, earned CT Page 4562 between the date of marriage and the date of dissolution. Said award is to be pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared by Barry Kaplan at an expense to be equally shared. Counsel for both parties are to certify their approval of the QDRO before submitting it to the court for approval. The court will reserve jurisdiction to hear any disputes concerning this order. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the liabilities shown on their respect"}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: lifornia which he sold and netted $24,264.00, a Corvette automobile with a value of $8,000.00, a Volkswagen automobile with a value of $2,500.00, a ski boat with a value of $9,500.00, savings of $7,933.00, and furniture of $6,000.00. He also had accumulated a pension from 10 years of employment at Sikorsky. A pension expert testified that at the time of marriage the benefit to which he was entitled was $295.87 per month at age 65. The present monthly benefit at age 65 is $1,647.41. The Husband also had various obligations to his first Wife which were paid off during the course of the marriage. There was much testimony"}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): and should have no difficulty being productive and self supporting in future years. The orders contained herein are based upon his current income of $1,422.00 per week. At the time of the marriage, the Wife claimed to have $6,000 in savings, $3,400.00 in a 401k, jewelry, and a car with a $10,000 fair market value. However, it should be noted that during the course of the marriage the parties were recipients of generous cash and personal property gifts from the Wife's family on an annual basis. Such assistance from her family continues for the Wife. The Husband claimed, and had documentary evidence to substantiat"}
{"id":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"43a82223-68b3-4329-b6c7-023a645bf261","slug":"holly-m-hargitt-v-terry-a-hargitt-3327124","title":"Holly M. Hargitt v. Terry A. Hargitt.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331623/hargitt-v-hargitt-no-fa-98-0063749-apr-14-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331623","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-18","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the difference. The Wife is awarded one-half of the monthly benefit from the Husband's UTC Pension Plan, including survivors benefits, earned CT Page 4562 between the date of marriage and the date of dissolution. Said award is to be pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared by Barry Kaplan at an expense to be equally shared. Counsel for both parties are to certify their approval of the QDRO before submitting it to the court for approval. The court will reserve jurisdiction to hear any disputes concerning this order. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the liabilities shown on their respect"}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger Date: 1999-04-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rder to partially or wholly liquidate this CT Page 4958 amount, he alone will bear the costs of sale. Using the date of memorandum as evaluation date, the retirement plans and/or IRAs of the parties shall be distributed equally to them by way of appropriate qualified domestic relations order or other orders may be required to effect this distribution. The assets included in this distribution plan include the Prudential plan, the Prudential IRA and the John Alden account as noted on the plaintiff's financial affidavit and the Caldor profit sharing plan and any benefits accruing from the retirement benefit plan of R.R. Donnelly Sons Company as sh"}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e court is taking into consideration that in the event the plaintiff eventually sells the property in order to partially or wholly liquidate this CT Page 4958 amount, he alone will bear the costs of sale. Using the date of memorandum as evaluation date, the retirement plans and/or IRAs of the parties shall be distributed equally to them by way of appropriate qualified domestic relations order or other orders may be required to effect this distribution. The assets included in this distribution plan include the Prudential plan, the Prudential IRA and the John Alden account as noted on the plaintiff's financial affidavit and the"}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rtially or wholly liquidate this CT Page 4958 amount, he alone will bear the costs of sale. Using the date of memorandum as evaluation date, the retirement plans and/or IRAs of the parties shall be distributed equally to them by way of appropriate qualified domestic relations order or other orders may be required to effect this distribution. The assets included in this distribution plan include the Prudential plan, the Prudential IRA and the John Alden account as noted on the plaintiff's financial affidavit and the Caldor profit sharing plan and any benefits accruing from the retirement benefit plan of R.R. Donnelly Sons Company as sh"}
{"id":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5ca2e43-e49b-4053-a594-bda219c7cd5b","slug":"howard-j-alger-v-sara-k-alger-3328615","title":"Howard J. Alger v. Sara K. Alger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333115/alger-v-alger-no-fa98-86164-apr-1-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333115","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-01","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the gross 50%, as the court is taking into consideration that in the event the plaintiff eventually sells the property in order to partially or wholly liquidate this CT Page 4958 amount, he alone will bear the costs of sale. Using the date of memorandum as evaluation date, the retirement plans and/or IRAs of the parties shall be distributed equally to them by way of appropriate qualified domestic relations order or other orders may be required to effect this distribution. The assets included in this distribution plan include the Prudential plan, the Prudential IRA and the John Alden account as noted on the plaintiff's financ"}
{"id":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"01f92251-82d3-4122-936a-bb62bb901cd4","slug":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231","title":"In Re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus","citation":"265 P.3d 253","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844231/in-re-shaputis/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844231","extracted_docket_number":"of psychological tests. All the results were","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 P.3d 253","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-12-29","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"In Re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus Citation: 265 P.3d 253. Extracted reporter citation: 265 P.3d 253. Docket: of psychological tests. All the results were. Date: 2011-12-29. Machine-draft public headnote: In Re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"01f92251-82d3-4122-936a-bb62bb901cd4","slug":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231","title":"In Re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus","citation":"265 P.3d 253","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844231/in-re-shaputis/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844231","extracted_docket_number":"of psychological tests. All the results were","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 P.3d 253","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-12-29","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"01f92251-82d3-4122-936a-bb62bb901cd4","slug":"in-re-richard-shaputis-on-habeas-corpus-844231","title":"In Re RICHARD SHAPUTIS on Habeas Corpus","citation":"265 P.3d 253","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/844231/in-re-shaputis/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"844231","extracted_docket_number":"of psychological tests. All the results were","extracted_reporter_citation":"265 P.3d 253","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2011-12-29","citation_year":2011,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: usiness, and for the 13 years preceding the murder was employed by Bechtel Corporation as a supervisor. F. The 2009 Hearing At the latest hearing in August 2009, petitioner was 72 years old. It was noted that he had a comfortable private income from a union pension, Social Security, and some savings. He planned to live with his wife in a retirement community. Petitioner suffers from high blood pressure and has had three heart attacks, the most recent in 2003. He was recovering from shoulder surgery at the time of the hearing. As noted, petitioner had declined to be interviewed by the psychologist appointed by CDCR to"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f12793-7f32-40f3-9919-a5c8611677c4","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant","citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1243673/in-re-the-marriage-of-boyer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"1243673","extracted_docket_number":"94-213. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant Citation: 538 N.W.2d 293. Extracted reporter citation: 538 N.W.2d 293. Docket: 94-213. Supreme. Date: 1995-09-20. Machine-draft public headnote: In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f12793-7f32-40f3-9919-a5c8611677c4","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant","citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1243673/in-re-the-marriage-of-boyer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"1243673","extracted_docket_number":"94-213. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"48f12793-7f32-40f3-9919-a5c8611677c4","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-gloria-bonita-boyer-and-larry-charles-boyer-upon-the-petition-of-glo","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant","citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1243673/in-re-the-marriage-of-boyer/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"1243673","extracted_docket_number":"94-213. Supreme","extracted_reporter_citation":"538 N.W.2d 293","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-09-20","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: 538 N.W.2d 293 (1995) In re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, And Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant. No. 94-213. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 20, 1995. Leslie Babich of Babich, McConnell & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas D. Hanson and Brenda K. O'Neil of Hanson, Bjork & Russell, Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, NEUMAN, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ. HARRIS, Justice. We granted further review in this dissolution of marriage case in order to resolve a question on which the court of appeals is divided. Under federal legislation, social se"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8fa7615-f828-46bd-b38c-c75936a6a02e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree","title":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent","citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931141/marr-of-green/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"931141","extracted_docket_number":"S203561 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2013-06-24","citation_year":2013,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent Citation: 56 Cal. 4th 1130. Extracted reporter citation: 56 Cal. 4th 1130. Docket: S203561 Date. Date: 2013-06-24. Machine-draft public headnote: In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8fa7615-f828-46bd-b38c-c75936a6a02e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree","title":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent","citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931141/marr-of-green/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"931141","extracted_docket_number":"S203561 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2013-06-24","citation_year":2013,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8fa7615-f828-46bd-b38c-c75936a6a02e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree","title":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent","citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931141/marr-of-green/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"931141","extracted_docket_number":"S203561 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2013-06-24","citation_year":2013,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: re the Marriage of JULIE R. GREEN) and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. ) ) JULIE R. GREEN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) S203561 v. ) ) Ct.App. 1/4 A129436 TIMOTHY P. GREEN, ) ) Contra Costa County Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. D0801292 ____________________________________) Retirement benefits attributable to service rendered during a marriage are community property. In this case, the husband, a firefighter, has retirement benefits that are part community property and part his own separate property. During the time of the marriage, he exercised his right to purchase four years‟ worth of additional retirement credit for his premarital military se"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8fa7615-f828-46bd-b38c-c75936a6a02e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree","title":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent","citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931141/marr-of-green/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"931141","extracted_docket_number":"S203561 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2013-06-24","citation_year":2013,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r dissolution of the marriage in March 2008. The parties disputed whether to characterize husband‟s military service credit as separate or community property. After a trial, the trial court ordered that the military service credit portion of husband‟s CalPERS pension be awarded to him as his separate property. The court also ordered husband to pay wife $6,699.54, representing half of the installment payments made with community funds toward the military service credit, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent. Wife appealed, challenging the characterization of the military service credit as husband‟s separate property. T"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a8fa7615-f828-46bd-b38c-c75936a6a02e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-julie-r-and-timothy-p-green-julie-r-green-appellant-v-timothy-p-gree","title":"In Re the Marriage of JULIE R. and TIMOTHY P. GREEN. JULIE R. GREEN, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. GREEN, Respondent","citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931141/marr-of-green/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"931141","extracted_docket_number":"S203561 Date","extracted_reporter_citation":"56 Cal. 4th 1130","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2013-06-24","citation_year":2013,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: EN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) S203561 v. ) ) Ct.App. 1/4 A129436 TIMOTHY P. GREEN, ) ) Contra Costa County Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. D0801292 ____________________________________) Retirement benefits attributable to service rendered during a marriage are community property. In this case, the husband, a firefighter, has retirement benefits that are part community property and part his own separate property. During the time of the marriage, he exercised his right to purchase four years‟ worth of additional retirement credit for his premarital military service. He had to pay to obtain this additional credit, which he elected to"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a59ab96-d3b8-4ff6-b4c8-d976a4999439","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp","title":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent","citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3180054/obrecht-v-obrecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3180054","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-02-24","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent Citation: 245 Cal. App. 4th 1. Extracted reporter citation: 245 Cal. App. 4th 1. Date: 2016-02-24. Machine-draft public headnote: In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a59ab96-d3b8-4ff6-b4c8-d976a4999439","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp","title":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent","citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3180054/obrecht-v-obrecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3180054","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-02-24","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a59ab96-d3b8-4ff6-b4c8-d976a4999439","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp","title":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent","citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3180054/obrecht-v-obrecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3180054","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-02-24","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: igned a judgment for dissolution, which was filed on January 23, 2014. The judgment (1) ordered Raul to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,573 per month beginning November 7, 2012; (2) entered an earnings assignment order; (3) ordered Ingrid to prepare a qualified domestic relations order dividing Raul's pension; (4) ordered Raul to pay $11,516 plus interest in delinquent spousal support; and (5) confirmed the award of attorney fees made by the court on January 8, 2013. Raul filed a timely notice of appeal on March 21, 2014. DISCUSSION I. Personal Jurisdiction A. General Appearance Raul maintains that there was no basis for the trial cou"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a59ab96-d3b8-4ff6-b4c8-d976a4999439","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp","title":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent","citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3180054/obrecht-v-obrecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3180054","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-02-24","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n January 23, 2014. The judgment (1) ordered Raul to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,573 per month beginning November 7, 2012; (2) entered an earnings assignment order; (3) ordered Ingrid to prepare a qualified domestic relations order dividing Raul's pension; (4) ordered Raul to pay $11,516 plus interest in delinquent spousal support; and (5) confirmed the award of attorney fees made by the court on January 8, 2013. Raul filed a timely notice of appeal on March 21, 2014. DISCUSSION I. Personal Jurisdiction A. General Appearance Raul maintains that there was no basis for the trial court's exercise of persona"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a59ab96-d3b8-4ff6-b4c8-d976a4999439","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-raul-and-ingrid-obrecht-raul-obrecht-appellant-v-ingrid-obrecht-resp","title":"In Re the Marriage of RAUL and INGRID OBRECHT. RAUL OBRECHT, Appellant, v. INGRID OBRECHT, Respondent","citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3180054/obrecht-v-obrecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3180054","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"245 Cal. App. 4th 1","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-02-24","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dgment for dissolution, which was filed on January 23, 2014. The judgment (1) ordered Raul to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,573 per month beginning November 7, 2012; (2) entered an earnings assignment order; (3) ordered Ingrid to prepare a qualified domestic relations order dividing Raul's pension; (4) ordered Raul to pay $11,516 plus interest in delinquent spousal support; and (5) confirmed the award of attorney fees made by the court on January 8, 2013. Raul filed a timely notice of appeal on March 21, 2014. DISCUSSION I. Personal Jurisdiction A. General Appearance Raul maintains that there was no basis for the trial cou"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f1a1c8-bf9e-4184-a2ef-4494d89a30a6","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant","citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4242013/in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4242013","extracted_docket_number":"15-1825","extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-07-27","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant Citation: 886 N.W.2d 868. Extracted reporter citation: 886 N.W.2d 868. Docket: 15-1825. Date: 2016-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f1a1c8-bf9e-4184-a2ef-4494d89a30a6","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant","citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4242013/in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4242013","extracted_docket_number":"15-1825","extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-07-27","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f1a1c8-bf9e-4184-a2ef-4494d89a30a6","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant","citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4242013/in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4242013","extracted_docket_number":"15-1825","extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-07-27","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ntends the district court inequitably divided the parties' assets and liabilities. He asserts the court erred in (1) failing to consider Andy's parents' $80,000 contribution to the family home; (2) failing to address the Chevy Traverse; (3) dividing Andy's pension; and (4) ordering Andy to pay an equalization payment to Sandi in the amount of $13,590.60. \"[O]ur courts equitably divide all of the property owned by the parties at the time of divorce except inherited property and gifts received by one spouse.\" In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007). However, \"Iowa courts do not require an equal"}
{"id":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d5f1a1c8-bf9e-4184-a2ef-4494d89a30a6","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the-petition-of-sandi-i-hans","title":"In Re the MARRIAGE OF Sandi I. HANSEN and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, Petitioner-Appellee, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen, Respondent-Appellant","citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4242013/in-re-the-marriage-of-sandi-i-hansen-and-andrew-j-hansen-upon-the/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4242013","extracted_docket_number":"15-1825","extracted_reporter_citation":"886 N.W.2d 868","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-07-27","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: e earning capacity of each party; the desirability of awarding the family home to the party having custody of the children; the amount and duration of support payments; other economic circumstances; potential tax consequences; any written agreement concerning property division; an antenuptial agreement; and other relevant factors. Iowa Code § 598.21(5). 5 procedural errors arise that may require possession to be returned to one of the parties, or if after the sale, the parties are entitled to a surplus or have a deficiency to pay. However, we decline to speculate whether a surplus or deficiency may exist after the vehicle'"}
{"id":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ff443-97ce-45b6-b0de-5642707e3062","slug":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799","title":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371259/barton-v-barton-no-fa-90-306984-dec-31-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371259","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-31","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton Date: 1991-12-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ff443-97ce-45b6-b0de-5642707e3062","slug":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799","title":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371259/barton-v-barton-no-fa-90-306984-dec-31-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371259","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-31","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ff443-97ce-45b6-b0de-5642707e3062","slug":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799","title":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371259/barton-v-barton-no-fa-90-306984-dec-31-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371259","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-31","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ht U.S. Savings Bonds in the amount of $850.00, as well as the United Technology savings plan in the amount of $71,231.49. 7) The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of the present value of his Pratt Whitney pension benefits through a qualified domestic relations order. The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant one-half of the present value of her Caldor's pension benefits through a qualified domestic relations order. This order regarding both pension benefits is intended to be a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as the term is used in the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. The court retains jurisdiction o"}
{"id":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ff443-97ce-45b6-b0de-5642707e3062","slug":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799","title":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371259/barton-v-barton-no-fa-90-306984-dec-31-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371259","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-31","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d no lien. The plaintiff owns jewelry with a value of $2,000.00. she has a credit union account with a balance of $165.48, a City, savings account with a balance of $10,268.00, and a PTW credit union account with a balance of $1,200.00. The plaintiff also has pension plan at Caldor's. No evidence was presented as to the current value of that plan. The value of the plan as of the date the plaintiff reaches age 65 is $21,579.00. The plaintiff presently has a gross weekly salary of $255.00. The plaintiff has liabilities consisting of VISA $2,968.00, and Dr. Bruder with a balance of $930.00. The defendant owns a 1982 Subaru"}
{"id":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f75ff443-97ce-45b6-b0de-5642707e3062","slug":"jacqueline-barton-v-ronald-barton-3366799","title":"Jacqueline Barton v. Ronald Barton","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371259/barton-v-barton-no-fa-90-306984-dec-31-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371259","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-31","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: vings Bonds in the amount of $850.00, as well as the United Technology savings plan in the amount of $71,231.49. 7) The defendant is ordered to transfer to the plaintiff one-half of the present value of his Pratt Whitney pension benefits through a qualified domestic relations order. The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant one-half of the present value of her Caldor's pension benefits through a qualified domestic relations order. This order regarding both pension benefits is intended to be a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as the term is used in the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. The court retains jurisdiction o"}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr. Date: 1995-08-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: be responsible for the Sears bill and the remaining bills on her financial affidavit. Retirement Accounts 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) A P Retirement Program Savings Plan and Pension Account by CT Page 9159 way of a QDRO. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to his Grand Union Retirement Plan and the company funded Union Pension Fund in view of the award of lifetime alimony to the plaintiff. Life Insurance The defendant shall provide and maintain life insurance as is available through his employment with the plaintiff and the minor child named as irrevocable beneficiari"}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: y rented at $104 per week, less condominium fees of $17 and condominium taxes of $25 per week. The other asset of the marriage is the marital home, valued at $149,000, and subject to a mortgage in the amount of $130,000. The defendant also has pension and retirement benefits totaling approximately $32,220. The plaintiff felt the defendant was unfaithful and was not supportive of her physical condition. The defendant felt the plaintiff was not communicative and never expressed her feelings. No useful purpose would be served in reviewing all the evidence presented in this matter. The court declines to assess fault to either"}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: is presently rented at $104 per week, less condominium fees of $17 and condominium taxes of $25 per week. The other asset of the marriage is the marital home, valued at $149,000, and subject to a mortgage in the amount of $130,000. The defendant also has pension and retirement benefits totaling approximately $32,220. The plaintiff felt the defendant was unfaithful and was not supportive of her physical condition. The defendant felt the plaintiff was not communicative and never expressed her feelings. No useful purpose would be served in reviewing all the evidence presented in this matter. The court declines to"}
{"id":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8e69c7ab-f62b-4c7d-9221-125eed1ff445","slug":"jacqueline-r-regan-v-william-j-regan-jr-3370800","title":"Jacqueline R. Regan v. William J. Regan, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375256/regan-v-regan-no-fa94-04-80-08-aug-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375256","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-08-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the UI bill and the remaining bills on his financial affidavit. 3. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the Sears bill and the remaining bills on her financial affidavit. Retirement Accounts 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) A P Retirement Program Savings Plan and Pension Account by CT Page 9159 way of a QDRO. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to his Grand Union Retirement Plan and the company funded Union Pension Fund in view of the award of lifetime alimony to the plaintiff. Life Insurance The defendant shall provide and maintain life insurance as is available through"}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings Date: 1999-01-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: for one-half (1/2) of the 401K loan payments, as well as the 12 1/2% of Two Thousand One Hundred and Fourteen and 14/100 ($2,114.14), the plaintiff shall transfer to a separate account 50% of the remaining proceeds of the 401K account as of the date that the qualified domestic relations order is implemented. 6. The plaintiff's counsel shall prepare a QDRO consistent CT Page 325 with the above orders within two weeks of this order and forward to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel will consult with the plan trustee and advise Plaintiff's counsel of any requested changes within two weeks. The QDRO will be finalized and signed by both counse"}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ntitled to a fifty percent (50%) credit of said amount which is Four Hundred Seventy One and 58/100 ($471.58) as of November 2, 1998. 4. The defendant shall retain in his 401K account 12 1/2% of the Two Thousand One Hundred and Eleven and 14/100 ($2,111.14) pension contribution made by his employer since the date of dissolution which amounts to Two Hundred Sixty Four and 27/100 ($264.27). That pension contribution vested between May 1997 and April 30, 1998. The 12 1/2% represents the approximate 1 1/2 months that accrued since the date of dissolution. 5. After crediting the defendant for one-half (1/2) of the 401K l"}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): tiff has filed a motion for contempt coded #144. The court enters the following findings and orders regarding that motion. 1. The motion for contempt is denied. 2. No counsel fee are awarded in favor of either party. 3. The defendant shall retain in his 401K account a one-half (1/2) credit for all payments which he has paid against the loan balance in the amount of Two Thousand Fifty Seven and 14/100 ($2,057.14) as of the date of dissolution. Said payments total Nine Hundred Forty Three and 16/100 ($943.16) as of November 2, 1998. The defendant shall be entitled to a fifty percent (50%) credit of said amount wh"}
{"id":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"65f83973-61fb-4a6c-b5a8-91445deb30ca","slug":"jacqueline-teulings-v-robert-teulings-3353650","title":"Jacqueline Teulings v. Robert Teulings","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358118/teulings-v-teulings-no-fa-97-0396872s-jan-15-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358118","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-15","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: alf (1/2) of the 401K loan payments, as well as the 12 1/2% of Two Thousand One Hundred and Fourteen and 14/100 ($2,114.14), the plaintiff shall transfer to a separate account 50% of the remaining proceeds of the 401K account as of the date that the qualified domestic relations order is implemented. 6. The plaintiff's counsel shall prepare a QDRO consistent CT Page 325 with the above orders within two weeks of this order and forward to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel will consult with the plan trustee and advise Plaintiff's counsel of any requested changes within two weeks. The QDRO will be finalized and signed by both counse"}
{"id":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d09710a-fc89-49db-b951-f85b927ba4f1","slug":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258","title":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith","citation":"653 A.2d 1259","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362723/smith-v-smith-no-fa-93-53025-s-may-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362723","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"653 A.2d 1259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith Citation: 653 A.2d 1259. Extracted reporter citation: 653 A.2d 1259. Date: 1995-05-19. Machine-draft public headnote: James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d09710a-fc89-49db-b951-f85b927ba4f1","slug":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258","title":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith","citation":"653 A.2d 1259","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362723/smith-v-smith-no-fa-93-53025-s-may-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362723","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"653 A.2d 1259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d09710a-fc89-49db-b951-f85b927ba4f1","slug":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258","title":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith","citation":"653 A.2d 1259","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362723/smith-v-smith-no-fa-93-53025-s-may-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362723","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"653 A.2d 1259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: roperty shall be placed with a real estate agent for sale and the wife shall be entitled to the sum of $17,000 plus accrued interest until the date of sale. Pension: The wife shall be entitled to 50% of the present value of the husband's pension by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall prepare any QDRO documents necessary to effectuate this order. Counsel Fees: Each party shall be responsible for his or her own counsel fees. Personal Property: The wife shall have a one time access to the residence upon reasonable notice to the husband, for the purpose of obtaining any of her property stored in the cellar. She"}
{"id":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d09710a-fc89-49db-b951-f85b927ba4f1","slug":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258","title":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith","citation":"653 A.2d 1259","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362723/smith-v-smith-no-fa-93-53025-s-may-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362723","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"653 A.2d 1259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: explain the monetary and property orders: Alimony: The husband, age 44, is a truck driver for Consolidated Freightways and has a net weekly salary of $500.00. (His financial affidavit improperly deducts stock, bonds and credit union deductions). He has a pension through his employment and has some $7000 in Consolidated Freightways stock. He earns $17.68 per hour a housewife for about thirteen years of the marriage — until 1982. She nets $260 per week, and gets no benefits, (no medical insurance, no pension, no vacation, no sick time). She presently resides with her mother and has not been receiving alimony pe"}
{"id":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0d09710a-fc89-49db-b951-f85b927ba4f1","slug":"james-c-smith-v-barbara-jean-smith-3358258","title":"James C. Smith v. Barbara-Jean Smith","citation":"653 A.2d 1259","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362723/smith-v-smith-no-fa-93-53025-s-may-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362723","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"653 A.2d 1259","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-05-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: all be placed with a real estate agent for sale and the wife shall be entitled to the sum of $17,000 plus accrued interest until the date of sale. Pension: The wife shall be entitled to 50% of the present value of the husband's pension by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The plaintiff shall prepare any QDRO documents necessary to effectuate this order. Counsel Fees: Each party shall be responsible for his or her own counsel fees. Personal Property: The wife shall have a one time access to the residence upon reasonable notice to the husband, for the purpose of obtaining any of her property stored in the cellar. She"}
{"id":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bd3df5b-617a-4868-a7b8-12cc16b44ee6","slug":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897","title":"James Cody v. Colette Cody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372357/cody-v-cody-no-fa90-0106919-s-jul-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372357","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-07-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"James Cody v. Colette Cody Date: 1991-07-25. Machine-draft public headnote: James Cody v. Colette Cody is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bd3df5b-617a-4868-a7b8-12cc16b44ee6","slug":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897","title":"James Cody v. Colette Cody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372357/cody-v-cody-no-fa90-0106919-s-jul-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372357","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-07-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bd3df5b-617a-4868-a7b8-12cc16b44ee6","slug":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897","title":"James Cody v. Colette Cody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372357/cody-v-cody-no-fa90-0106919-s-jul-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372357","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-07-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: plaintiff shall be the sole owner of the 1981 BMW motor vehicle and the defendant shall execute the appropriate documents forthwith. 3. The defendant shall be entitled to her 1991 Nissan motor vehicle and shall be solely responsible for the loan thereon. QDRO The court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared transferring to the defendant wife, a 35% share of the Core Retirement Benefit (IBM Retirement Plan). The personal retirement plan shall remain the sole property/asset of the plaintiff. Income Tax CT Page 5901 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the income tax refunds, if a"}
{"id":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bd3df5b-617a-4868-a7b8-12cc16b44ee6","slug":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897","title":"James Cody v. Colette Cody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372357/cody-v-cody-no-fa90-0106919-s-jul-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372357","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-07-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: efendant shall be entitled to her 1991 Nissan motor vehicle and shall be solely responsible for the loan thereon. QDRO The court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared transferring to the defendant wife, a 35% share of the Core Retirement Benefit (IBM Retirement Plan). The personal retirement plan shall remain the sole property/asset of the plaintiff. Income Tax CT Page 5901 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the income tax refunds, if any, on his 1990 Federal and State Income Tax Returns. 2. The plaintiff shall hold the defendant harmless from any and all liability, interest and/or penalti"}
{"id":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8bd3df5b-617a-4868-a7b8-12cc16b44ee6","slug":"james-cody-v-colette-cody-3367897","title":"James Cody v. Colette Cody","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372357/cody-v-cody-no-fa90-0106919-s-jul-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372357","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-07-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 1981 BMW motor vehicle and the defendant shall execute the appropriate documents forthwith. 3. The defendant shall be entitled to her 1991 Nissan motor vehicle and shall be solely responsible for the loan thereon. QDRO The court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be prepared transferring to the defendant wife, a 35% share of the Core Retirement Benefit (IBM Retirement Plan). The personal retirement plan shall remain the sole property/asset of the plaintiff. Income Tax CT Page 5901 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the income tax refunds, if any, on his 1990 Federal and State Income Tax Returns. 2. Th"}
{"id":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a288172-8d51-4c4f-b54a-11203c4909d2","slug":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656","title":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346141/rapuano-v-rapuano-no-fa-01-0447559-s-aug-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346141","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano. Date: 2002-08-19. Machine-draft public headnote: James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a288172-8d51-4c4f-b54a-11203c4909d2","slug":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656","title":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346141/rapuano-v-rapuano-no-fa-01-0447559-s-aug-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346141","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a288172-8d51-4c4f-b54a-11203c4909d2","slug":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656","title":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346141/rapuano-v-rapuano-no-fa-01-0447559-s-aug-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346141","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ccordance with the applicable statute in the event she cohabits. The term of alimony cannot be modified downward. 5. The husband shall transfer to the wife 66% of his pension assets through the Steamfitters Union Pension listed on his financial affidavit by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which shall be prepared by the wife's counsel or his designee. He shall transfer to her by Qualified Domestic Relations order the sum of one half of the annuity listed on his financial affidavit, but not less than $12,100.00. 6. The husband shall pay the wife $2,000.00 as attorneys fees. 7. The husband will maintain the wife as the sole beneficiary of"}
{"id":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a288172-8d51-4c4f-b54a-11203c4909d2","slug":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656","title":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346141/rapuano-v-rapuano-no-fa-01-0447559-s-aug-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346141","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ath of either party or the wife's remarriage, and will be subject to a redetermination in accordance with the applicable statute in the event she cohabits. The term of alimony cannot be modified downward. 5. The husband shall transfer to the wife 66% of his pension assets through the Steamfitters Union Pension listed on his financial affidavit by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which shall be prepared by the wife's counsel or his designee. He shall transfer to her by Qualified Domestic Relations order the sum of one half of the annuity listed on his financial affidavit, but not less than $12,100.00. 6. The husba"}
{"id":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0a288172-8d51-4c4f-b54a-11203c4909d2","slug":"james-rapuano-v-karyn-rapuano-3341656","title":"James Rapuano v. Karyn Rapuano.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346141/rapuano-v-rapuano-no-fa-01-0447559-s-aug-19-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346141","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-08-19","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: with the applicable statute in the event she cohabits. The term of alimony cannot be modified downward. 5. The husband shall transfer to the wife 66% of his pension assets through the Steamfitters Union Pension listed on his financial affidavit by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which shall be prepared by the wife's counsel or his designee. He shall transfer to her by Qualified Domestic Relations order the sum of one half of the annuity listed on his financial affidavit, but not less than $12,100.00. 6. The husband shall pay the wife $2,000.00 as attorneys fees. 7. The husband will maintain the wife as the sole beneficiary of"}
{"id":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"beafddee-16cc-40ae-bf68-cf47b1014822","slug":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562","title":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332062/korab-v-korab-no-fa00-0092713-s-mar-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332062","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab. Date: 2001-03-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"beafddee-16cc-40ae-bf68-cf47b1014822","slug":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562","title":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332062/korab-v-korab-no-fa00-0092713-s-mar-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332062","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"beafddee-16cc-40ae-bf68-cf47b1014822","slug":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562","title":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332062/korab-v-korab-no-fa00-0092713-s-mar-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332062","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tures in the house. Each party shall keep and retain their respective motor vehicles. Each party shall be responsible for and hold the other harmless from the debts shown on their financial affidavits. The plaintiff shall transfer to the Defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the amount of $20,000 from his Thrift Savings Plan. The plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant as alimony the amount of $100.00 per week for a period of six months, which amount and duration shall not be subject to modification. Each party shall be responsible for their own counsel fees. The Defendant shall be entitled to continue as an insured on the Plainti"}
{"id":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"beafddee-16cc-40ae-bf68-cf47b1014822","slug":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562","title":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332062/korab-v-korab-no-fa00-0092713-s-mar-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332062","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: vor of either party. At the time of the trial the parties had two major assets: their house and lot at 14 Brookside Lane, Essex, Connecticut which the court finds has a value of $125,000 less the mortgage debt of $75,858.05 or $49,141.95 and the Plaintiff's pension from his employment as a postal worker (Thrift Savings Plan) which, on January 1, 2001 had a value of $66,033.89. Pl. Exhibit 5. The February and March payments on the mortgage debt of $752.54 each are in arrears and late charges are due. Neither party offered the court CT Page 3587 information about the value of the pension exactly as of the trial date. Bo"}
{"id":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"beafddee-16cc-40ae-bf68-cf47b1014822","slug":"jamieson-v-korab-v-patricia-c-korab-3327562","title":"Jamieson v. Korab v. Patricia C. Korab.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332062/korab-v-korab-no-fa00-0092713-s-mar-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332062","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he house. Each party shall keep and retain their respective motor vehicles. Each party shall be responsible for and hold the other harmless from the debts shown on their financial affidavits. The plaintiff shall transfer to the Defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the amount of $20,000 from his Thrift Savings Plan. The plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant as alimony the amount of $100.00 per week for a period of six months, which amount and duration shall not be subject to modification. Each party shall be responsible for their own counsel fees. The Defendant shall be entitled to continue as an insured on the Plainti"}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola Date: 1994-03-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ocated at 15 Baldwin Road, Newtown, Connecticut, to the wife. She shall be responsible for all of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of said home and shall hold the husband harmless. 3. The court awards to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, a 25 percent joint and survivorship annuity in the husband's pension benefit through United Technologies Corporation. 4. The husband shall retain his entire interest in the savings plan. CT Page 2552 5. Upon the sale of the home by the wife, provided it is sold within three years and there is a capital gains to be paid because of a failure to defer sai"}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: twenty-five (25) years prior to his termination in 1990. CT Page 2551 The wife works for a travel agency and her earnings are $38,000 annually. Neither party has requested alimony in their post judgment briefs. The wife does presently have an individual retirement plan. The husband's retirement plan with United Technologies Corporation would provide him with $985 per month at age sixty-five (65) or $819 at an early retirement. The husband also has an individual retirement plan which has a value of approximately the same as his wife's plan. The court need not dwell on the charges by each party as to the breakdown of th"}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of said home and shall hold the husband harmless. 3. The court awards to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, a 25 percent joint and survivorship annuity in the husband's pension benefit through United Technologies Corporation. 4. The husband shall retain his entire interest in the savings plan. CT Page 2552 5. Upon the sale of the home by the wife, provided it is sold within three years and there is a capital gains to be paid because of a failure to defer said capital gains consequence, the husband shall pay to the wife 50 perc"}
{"id":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"358a314a-2171-47fe-ad11-366692e23d65","slug":"jane-m-pierwola-v-stanley-a-pierwola-3372274","title":"Jane M. Pierwola v. Stanley A. Pierwola","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376728/pierwola-v-pierwola-no-31-19-42-mar-11-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376728","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-11","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 15 Baldwin Road, Newtown, Connecticut, to the wife. She shall be responsible for all of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of said home and shall hold the husband harmless. 3. The court awards to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, a 25 percent joint and survivorship annuity in the husband's pension benefit through United Technologies Corporation. 4. The husband shall retain his entire interest in the savings plan. CT Page 2552 5. Upon the sale of the home by the wife, provided it is sold within three years and there is a capital gains to be paid because of a failure to defer sai"}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root. Date: 2000-05-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: court declines to enter an order allowing attorney's fees to CT Page 5681 be paid to her by the defendant. The State of Connecticut pension is to be equally divided by the parties, which is presently being done and, if appropriate, the parties may submit a qualified domestic relations order to continue this in the future. The court will retain jurisdiction to issue any qualified domestic relations orders that may be necessary in connection with any of these assets. In addition to the equity of the family residence, the parties have stipulated as to the following assets and the valuations thereof: People Savings Bank Savings Account $47,200"}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: after allocated to the plaintiff will not be impacted substantially by her being responsible for her own attorney's fees, the court declines to enter an order allowing attorney's fees to CT Page 5681 be paid to her by the defendant. The State of Connecticut pension is to be equally divided by the parties, which is presently being done and, if appropriate, the parties may submit a qualified domestic relations order to continue this in the future. The court will retain jurisdiction to issue any qualified domestic relations orders that may be necessary in connection with any of these assets. In addition to the equity o"}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: lines to enter an order allowing attorney's fees to CT Page 5681 be paid to her by the defendant. The State of Connecticut pension is to be equally divided by the parties, which is presently being done and, if appropriate, the parties may submit a qualified domestic relations order to continue this in the future. The court will retain jurisdiction to issue any qualified domestic relations orders that may be necessary in connection with any of these assets. In addition to the equity of the family residence, the parties have stipulated as to the following assets and the valuations thereof: People Savings Bank Savings Account $47,200"}
{"id":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25be1304-681c-42f2-be3e-39b9636d55d4","slug":"janet-k-root-v-robert-j-root-3366054","title":"Janet K. Root v. Robert J. Root.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370514/root-v-root-no-fa99-89879-may-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370514","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-05-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: a distribution order herein. Based upon the statutory criteria which outlines those factors the court should consider in determining property settlement award and alimony, the court finds that under the circumstances of this long term marriage that a fair and equitable distribution of the marital assets is determined to be sixty percent (60%) set over to the wife and forty percent (40%) set over to the husband. The parties have agreed and the court directs that in said distribution the residence premises, which the court finds to have an equity value of $105,000.00, shall be set over to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely and she sh"}
{"id":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0263902a-c387-4cea-9419-141deabc963c","slug":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083","title":"Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346567/lavallee-v-lavallee-no-43975-s-jul-23-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346567","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-07-23","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee. Date: 1992-07-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0263902a-c387-4cea-9419-141deabc963c","slug":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083","title":"Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346567/lavallee-v-lavallee-no-43975-s-jul-23-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346567","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-07-23","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0263902a-c387-4cea-9419-141deabc963c","slug":"janet-l-lavallee-v-richard-a-lavallee-3342083","title":"Janet L. Lavallee v. Richard A. Lavallee.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346567/lavallee-v-lavallee-no-43975-s-jul-23-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346567","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-07-23","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":9,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: children as provided through his employer and will share the unreimbursed expenses equally. 8. Defendant will make available to the plaintiff COBRA benefits. 9. The defendant will transfer his Shannon Enterprises, Inc. stock and one half his ESOP plan by QDRO to the plaintiff. 10. The defendant will be entitled to claim both children as dependents for income tax purposes. 11. The defendant to get the Ford Mustang and Bronco. The plaintiff to get the Mitsubishi Galant and the Jaguar which should defray her legal expenses. 12. The defendant will maintain $50,000 of life insurance for each child during their"}
{"id":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c07e43-b65b-4c68-8bbd-631d144119f4","slug":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403","title":"Janet Lucas v. George Lucas","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354877/lucas-v-lucas-no-fa93-04-33-57-nov-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354877","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Janet Lucas v. George Lucas Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 1994-11-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Janet Lucas v. George Lucas is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c07e43-b65b-4c68-8bbd-631d144119f4","slug":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403","title":"Janet Lucas v. George Lucas","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354877/lucas-v-lucas-no-fa93-04-33-57-nov-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354877","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c07e43-b65b-4c68-8bbd-631d144119f4","slug":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403","title":"Janet Lucas v. George Lucas","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354877/lucas-v-lucas-no-fa93-04-33-57-nov-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354877","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he plaintiff, subject to the two outstanding mortgages on that property which the plaintiff shall assume and hold the defendant harmless from any liability thereon. A Qualified Uniform Domestic Relations Order for the transfer of one-half of the defendant's pension plan and one half of the CT Page 11174 defendant's tax deferred annuity to the plaintiff shall be issued and the defendant shall cooperate in executing any necessary papers to effect this order of the court. The contents of the marital home shall belong to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff $1000. forthwith which she shall use to pay t"}
{"id":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f7c07e43-b65b-4c68-8bbd-631d144119f4","slug":"janet-lucas-v-george-lucas-3350403","title":"Janet Lucas v. George Lucas","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354877/lucas-v-lucas-no-fa93-04-33-57-nov-3-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354877","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-03","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: one half interest in the family property at 10 April Lane in Shelton to the plaintiff, subject to the two outstanding mortgages on that property which the plaintiff shall assume and hold the defendant harmless from any liability thereon. A Qualified Uniform Domestic Relations Order for the transfer of one-half of the defendant's pension plan and one half of the CT Page 11174 defendant's tax deferred annuity to the plaintiff shall be issued and the defendant shall cooperate in executing any necessary papers to effect this order of the court. The contents of the marital home shall belong to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay the"}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres. Date: 2002-04-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Janice Torres v. Israel Torres. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: home. The defendant shall have no obligation to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, or any other expense associated with the home. 7. Within 30 days the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the entire balance of his 401k. This shall be accomplished by Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared by plaintiff's counsel. The court will retain jurisdiction until this transfer has been accomplished. 8. The defendant shall retain the full balance of his Teamsters pension, free and clear of the claims of the plaintiff. 9. The defendant shall retain his Mitsubishi automobile. The plaintiff shall retain the Jeep which is parked in the ya"}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ortion of which is not covered by insurance. She is not able to be employed. The defendant, age 45, is in apparent good health. He is employed by United Parcel Service and is a member of the Teamsters Union. He earns approximately $45,000 per year. He has a pension though his union which will pay him $2,402 per month beginning at age 64. The total present actuarial value of the pension is $87,000. The defendant also has a 401k through his union with an account value of $21,651.97. The parties own a home at 54 Goodwin Park Road, Wethersfield where the plaintiff lives with the minor child. The house has a value of $13"}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e and is a member of the Teamsters Union. He earns approximately $45,000 per year. He has a pension though his union which will pay him $2,402 per month beginning at age 64. The total present actuarial value of the pension is $87,000. The defendant also has a 401k through his union with an account value of $21,651.97. The parties own a home at 54 Goodwin Park Road, Wethersfield where the plaintiff lives with the minor child. The house has a value of $132,000 and is encumbered with a mortgage with a balance of $100,800. The parties agreed that the house should remain in joint names, but that the plaintiff will conti"}
{"id":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21a4147-6416-4e28-b44e-d3c210d37422","slug":"janice-torres-v-israel-torres-3371857","title":"Janice Torres v. Israel Torres.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376312/torres-v-torres-no-fa-00-0724484s-apr-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376312","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-04-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: defendant shall have no obligation to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, or any other expense associated with the home. 7. Within 30 days the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the entire balance of his 401k. This shall be accomplished by Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared by plaintiff's counsel. The court will retain jurisdiction until this transfer has been accomplished. 8. The defendant shall retain the full balance of his Teamsters pension, free and clear of the claims of the plaintiff. 9. The defendant shall retain his Mitsubishi automobile. The plaintiff shall retain the Jeep which is parked in the ya"}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner Date: 1996-03-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the sum of approximately fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars. 5. The defendant is awarded the following assets: his checking and savings accounts; his IRA Rollover (Fidelity); his 1986 Mercedes automobile. 6. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interests valued as of the date of this judgment in the following: his IBM 401k pension and profit sharing plan; his IBM Retirement plan. 7. From the defendant's Gemini 401k and Profit-Sharing Plan, the defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of ten thousand ($10,000."}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: des automobile. 6. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interests valued as of the date of this judgment in the following: his IBM 401k pension and profit sharing plan; his IBM Retirement plan. 7. From the defendant's Gemini 401k and Profit-Sharing Plan, the defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars. The defendant is awarded the entire balance of this plan. CT Page 2211 The court retains jurisdiction to modify all the QDROs ordered to comply with federal and"}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s made to the plaintiff commencing September 12, 1994, when the parties submitted a stipulation with respect to pendente lite orders. 4. The plaintiff is awarded the following assets: her checking and savings accounts; her IRA Fidelity account; her Banker's Pension Services account; the proceeds due from the loss of the Volvo automobile in the sum of approximately fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars. 5. The defendant is awarded the following assets: his checking and savings accounts; his IRA Rollover (Fidelity); his 1986 Mercedes automobile. 6. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Rela"}
{"id":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8d7162e3-08b9-4825-95b5-589fc1995f73","slug":"janis-bonner-v-chris-bonner-3344623","title":"Janis Bonner v. Chris Bonner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349103/bonner-v-bonner-no-fa94-0136965-s-mar-19-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349103","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-19","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s; his IRA Rollover (Fidelity); his 1986 Mercedes automobile. 6. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) fifty (50%) percent of his interests valued as of the date of this judgment in the following: his IBM 401k pension and profit sharing plan; his IBM Retirement plan. 7. From the defendant's Gemini 401k and Profit-Sharing Plan, the defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars. The defendant is awarded the entire balance of this plan. CT Page 2211 The court retains jurisdiction t"}
{"id":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b47e9364-b7e2-483d-8cc0-70d38a660740","slug":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265","title":"Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342751/monroe-v-monroe-no-fa000339116-jan-5-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342751","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-05","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe. Date: 2001-01-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b47e9364-b7e2-483d-8cc0-70d38a660740","slug":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265","title":"Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342751/monroe-v-monroe-no-fa000339116-jan-5-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342751","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-05","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b47e9364-b7e2-483d-8cc0-70d38a660740","slug":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265","title":"Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342751/monroe-v-monroe-no-fa000339116-jan-5-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342751","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-05","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: deferred investment account (401K) through her employment at Boebringer Ingeiheim in the amount of $62,895.00. The Wife shall retain 75% of said sum and transfer to the Husband 25% of said sum within 90 days of the date of the dissolution. In the event that a QDRO CT Page 596 is necessary to divide this account, the costs of the preparation of the necessary documents shall be shared equally by the parties. The Superior court shall retain jurisdiction over the tax deferred account until it is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the"}
{"id":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b47e9364-b7e2-483d-8cc0-70d38a660740","slug":"jean-ann-monroe-v-bruce-allen-monroe-3338265","title":"Jean Ann Monroe v. Bruce Allen Monroe.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342751/monroe-v-monroe-no-fa000339116-jan-5-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342751","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-01-05","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e is unable to do so, she shall apply each year thereafter until she so qualifies. The Wife shall provide proof to the Husband that she has complied each year with this order. TAX DEFERRED INVESTMENT ACCOUNT The Wife has a tax deferred investment account (401K) through her employment at Boebringer Ingeiheim in the amount of $62,895.00. The Wife shall retain 75% of said sum and transfer to the Husband 25% of said sum within 90 days of the date of the dissolution. In the event that a QDRO CT Page 596 is necessary to divide this account, the costs of the preparation of the necessary documents shall be shared equally"}
{"id":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4052658-976d-4413-a58a-03e4735b98d2","slug":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769","title":"Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342255/kilcourse-v-kilcourse-no-fa99-0153203s-mar-26-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342255","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-26","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 2001-03-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4052658-976d-4413-a58a-03e4735b98d2","slug":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769","title":"Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342255/kilcourse-v-kilcourse-no-fa99-0153203s-mar-26-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342255","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-26","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4052658-976d-4413-a58a-03e4735b98d2","slug":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769","title":"Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342255/kilcourse-v-kilcourse-no-fa99-0153203s-mar-26-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342255","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-26","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: other part-time position. The plaintiff underwent cardiac catheterization in April 2000 after becoming ill at work. She continues to work full-time. The parties purchased a condominium in 1995. The source of the down payment was $6000 from the plaintiff's pension fund and a gift of CT Page 4062 approximately $6000 from the defendant's parents. The parties paid $129,000 and have a mortgage balance of approximately $118,000. The court finds that the fair market value of the condominium is approximately $135,000. The defendant is a beneficiary of a Family Trust. The court has insufficient evidence upon which to base an"}
{"id":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4052658-976d-4413-a58a-03e4735b98d2","slug":"jeannette-kilcourse-v-michael-w-kilcourse-3337769","title":"Jeannette Kilcourse v. Michael W. Kilcourse.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342255/kilcourse-v-kilcourse-no-fa99-0153203s-mar-26-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342255","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-03-26","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his interest valued as of the date of judgment in the town of Ridgefield Pension Plans, both Union and Non-Union to the plaintiff. She shall hold that interest jointly with right of survivorship. He shall prepare the Domestic Relations Order necessary to effectuate this transfer. All other claims for relief not specifically addressed herein have been rejected. Judgment shall enter accordingly. SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY"}
{"id":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8001464a-ce94-48bd-9e76-a4534b87cf03","slug":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717","title":"Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369177/davis-v-davis-no-fa-99-0721899-s-jun-29-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369177","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-29","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis. Date: 2001-06-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8001464a-ce94-48bd-9e76-a4534b87cf03","slug":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717","title":"Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369177/davis-v-davis-no-fa-99-0721899-s-jun-29-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369177","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-29","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8001464a-ce94-48bd-9e76-a4534b87cf03","slug":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717","title":"Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369177/davis-v-davis-no-fa-99-0721899-s-jun-29-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369177","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-29","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pointed evaluator, and the attorney for the child are to be paid within ninety days. The husband shall transfer to the wife, fifty-five percent of the CT Page 8778 Veriflex Retirement Annuity and fifty-five per cent of the Carpenters Supplemental Annuity by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. d. Alimony The court finds that absent any evidence of an inability to secure and maintain employment, the wife has an earning capacity of at least $240.00 per week gross. The husband's current earnings are approximately $840.00 per week gross. In considering that the husband will bear 100% of the expenses for the minor child and in view of the fact t"}
{"id":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8001464a-ce94-48bd-9e76-a4534b87cf03","slug":"jeffrey-a-davis-v-joanne-m-davis-3364717","title":"Jeffrey A. Davis v. Joanne M. Davis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3369177/davis-v-davis-no-fa-99-0721899-s-jun-29-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3369177","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-29","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aluator, and the attorney for the child are to be paid within ninety days. The husband shall transfer to the wife, fifty-five percent of the CT Page 8778 Veriflex Retirement Annuity and fifty-five per cent of the Carpenters Supplemental Annuity by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. d. Alimony The court finds that absent any evidence of an inability to secure and maintain employment, the wife has an earning capacity of at least $240.00 per week gross. The husband's current earnings are approximately $840.00 per week gross. In considering that the husband will bear 100% of the expenses for the minor child and in view of the fact t"}
{"id":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47054ec0-c837-4b98-8e44-692f6a8c7400","slug":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087","title":"Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331586/raynor-v-raynor-no-fa94-04-67-90s-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331586","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor Date: 1995-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47054ec0-c837-4b98-8e44-692f6a8c7400","slug":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087","title":"Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331586/raynor-v-raynor-no-fa94-04-67-90s-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331586","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47054ec0-c837-4b98-8e44-692f6a8c7400","slug":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087","title":"Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331586/raynor-v-raynor-no-fa94-04-67-90s-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331586","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OTHER PROPERTY A. The defendant is to turn over to the plaintiff, to be placed in her name as custodial parent, any bankbooks presently held by defendant for the benefit of the minor children of the marriage, Marc and Steven. B. Defendant is to execute a QDRO awarding plaintiff 40% of the Mutual Benefit Life deferred compensation plan's present value, reflected in the defendant's Financial Affidavit to have a value of $32,561.38. C. The defendant shall execute a QDRO awarding to plaintiff and for plaintiff's account 40% of his Pension Manor Bridgeport Diocesan deferred compensation plan, present value, reflect"}
{"id":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"47054ec0-c837-4b98-8e44-692f6a8c7400","slug":"jill-raynor-v-robert-raynor-3327087","title":"Jill Raynor v. Robert Raynor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331586/raynor-v-raynor-no-fa94-04-67-90s-jul-27-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331586","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-27","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iff 40% of the Mutual Benefit Life deferred compensation plan's present value, reflected in the defendant's Financial Affidavit to have a value of $32,561.38. C. The defendant shall execute a QDRO awarding to plaintiff and for plaintiff's account 40% of his Pension Manor Bridgeport Diocesan deferred compensation plan, present value, reflected in his Financial Affidavit to have a value of $19,626.56. D. Defendant is to execute a QDRO awarding plaintiff and for plaintiff's account 40% of his Mutual of America deferred compensation plan's present value, reflected in his Financial Affidavit to have a value of $5,208.33."}
{"id":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b98b6b1f-d8e7-4eaa-b244-90a0cf7df96d","slug":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422","title":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355895/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa89-0099150-s-aug-14-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355895","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-08-14","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer. Date: 1990-08-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b98b6b1f-d8e7-4eaa-b244-90a0cf7df96d","slug":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422","title":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355895/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa89-0099150-s-aug-14-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355895","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-08-14","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b98b6b1f-d8e7-4eaa-b244-90a0cf7df96d","slug":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422","title":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355895/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa89-0099150-s-aug-14-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355895","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-08-14","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: set forth on his financial affidavit if not otherwise disposed of in this memorandum. 2. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts and liabilities as set forth on her financial affidavit if not otherwise disposed of in this memorandum. Q.D.R.O. A qualified Domestic Relations order shall enter granting to the wife 50% of the husband's 401K account as of October 1, 1990. Counsel shall agree upon the prepared order and submit the same to the court. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate the entry of this order. Insurance 1. The husband shall provide and maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of One Hundred Thousan"}
{"id":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b98b6b1f-d8e7-4eaa-b244-90a0cf7df96d","slug":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422","title":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355895/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa89-0099150-s-aug-14-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355895","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-08-14","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): . The plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts and liabilities as set forth on her financial affidavit if not otherwise disposed of in this memorandum. Q.D.R.O. A qualified Domestic Relations order shall enter granting to the wife 50% of the husband's 401K account as of October 1, 1990. Counsel shall agree upon the prepared order and submit the same to the court. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate the entry of this order. Insurance 1. The husband shall provide and maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) naming the wife as irrevocable benefic"}
{"id":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b98b6b1f-d8e7-4eaa-b244-90a0cf7df96d","slug":"jo-ann-dwyer-v-james-dwyer-3351422","title":"Jo Ann Dwyer v. James Dwyer.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355895/dwyer-v-dwyer-no-fa89-0099150-s-aug-14-1990/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355895","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1990-08-14","citation_year":1990,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: on his financial affidavit if not otherwise disposed of in this memorandum. 2. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts and liabilities as set forth on her financial affidavit if not otherwise disposed of in this memorandum. Q.D.R.O. A qualified Domestic Relations order shall enter granting to the wife 50% of the husband's 401K account as of October 1, 1990. Counsel shall agree upon the prepared order and submit the same to the court. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate the entry of this order. Insurance 1. The husband shall provide and maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of One Hundred Thousan"}
{"id":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58f474a7-d66a-4cdb-8487-62150e91a6d0","slug":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156","title":"Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373615/fowler-v-fowler-no-fa95-0051903s-mar-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373615","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler Date: 1997-03-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58f474a7-d66a-4cdb-8487-62150e91a6d0","slug":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156","title":"Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373615/fowler-v-fowler-no-fa95-0051903s-mar-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373615","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58f474a7-d66a-4cdb-8487-62150e91a6d0","slug":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156","title":"Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373615/fowler-v-fowler-no-fa95-0051903s-mar-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373615","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rst mortgage, then the real estate shall be placed on the market and shall be sold without delay. OTHER PROPERTY 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the present day value of the defendant's SNET Retirement Savings Plan to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the present day value of the defendant's SNET Pension Plan to be secured by means of a QDRO. 3. The defendant shall be entitled to his TRASOP Fund, the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Policy, the John Hancock Insurance Policy, the Monetta Mutual Fund, and the U.S. Savings Bonds in his name. 4. With respect t"}
{"id":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"58f474a7-d66a-4cdb-8487-62150e91a6d0","slug":"joan-fowler-v-barry-fowler-3369156","title":"Joan Fowler v. Barry Fowler","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373615/fowler-v-fowler-no-fa95-0051903s-mar-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373615","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-03-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . A contested hearing as to the division of the marital assets was held on the petition to dissolve the marriage at which time both parties filed new affidavits and both parties were heard at length. The court finds that the defendant failed to disclose a pension valued at $97,800, 155 shares of SNET stock, and a John Hancock Life Insurance police with a cash value of $3657. The CT Page 1913 defendant also understated his SNET Management Retirement Savings an by approximately $10,000 and failed to disclose his $150,000 life insurance policy. The court finds that the parties have not resumed a marital relationship"}
{"id":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d4eab0a-1f1d-4215-85eb-bc2f42aae0a6","slug":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641","title":"Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360108/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa98-0060903s-nov-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360108","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott Date: 1998-11-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d4eab0a-1f1d-4215-85eb-bc2f42aae0a6","slug":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641","title":"Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360108/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa98-0060903s-nov-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360108","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d4eab0a-1f1d-4215-85eb-bc2f42aae0a6","slug":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641","title":"Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360108/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa98-0060903s-nov-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360108","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h party shall retain whatever personal property they have in their respective possession including their respective bank accounts. Miscellaneous 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% or 1/2 of the defendant's 401(k) which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The defendant's counsel is holding the sum of $7,000 in escrow. From said account, the defendant shall pay the following: a) the debt to Mark Firriulo in the amount of $1320; b) the sum of $380.80 shall be paid to plaintiff's counsel for court costs and sheriff's fees; c) a lump sum amount of $1,000 shall be paid to the plaintiff; d) the Visa"}
{"id":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5d4eab0a-1f1d-4215-85eb-bc2f42aae0a6","slug":"joann-elliott-v-michael-elliott-3355641","title":"Joann Elliott v. Michael Elliott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360108/elliott-v-elliott-no-fa98-0060903s-nov-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360108","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s permitted by the leasing company. 3. Each party shall retain whatever personal property they have in their respective possession including their respective bank accounts. Miscellaneous 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% or 1/2 of the defendant's 401(k) which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The defendant's counsel is holding the sum of $7,000 in escrow. From said account, the defendant shall pay the following: a) the debt to Mark Firriulo in the amount of $1320; b) the sum of $380.80 shall be paid to plaintiff's counsel for court costs and sheriff's fees; c) a lump sum amount of $1,000 shal"}
{"id":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8427a054-068d-4762-9fce-fb6f46fb40df","slug":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532","title":"John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356005/boyle-v-boyle-no-0101153-oct-24-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356005","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-24","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle. Date: 1991-10-24. Machine-draft public headnote: John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8427a054-068d-4762-9fce-fb6f46fb40df","slug":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532","title":"John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356005/boyle-v-boyle-no-0101153-oct-24-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356005","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-24","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8427a054-068d-4762-9fce-fb6f46fb40df","slug":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532","title":"John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356005/boyle-v-boyle-no-0101153-oct-24-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356005","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-24","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nterest in the 1988 Subaru auto to the defendant and the plaintiff shall immediately pay any delinquent municipal taxes due thereon. The defendant shall assume and pay the remaining loan secured by said auto. The attorney for the plaintiff shall prepare any QDRO required to effectuate the pension division and shall prepare the judgment file. HARRIGAN, JUDGE"}
{"id":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8427a054-068d-4762-9fce-fb6f46fb40df","slug":"john-boyle-v-anne-m-boyle-3351532","title":"John Boyle v. Anne M. Boyle.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356005/boyle-v-boyle-no-0101153-oct-24-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356005","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-24","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: thout any advance notice to the defendant the plaintiff moved from the family home on June 29, 1990 and shortly thereafter began cohabiting with another woman. After mandatory deductions, the plaintiff's net disposable income is $607 weekly. He has a vested pension at his place of employment containing $7,453.00. The parties have no other significant assets. Having considered the evidence: in view of the statutory criteria the court finds that the allegations of the complaint have been proven, and the court enters the following judgment. 1. A decree is entered dissolving the parties' marriage on the ground of irretr"}
{"id":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900cf1ec-2df1-4e3c-bed7-8cb39b373920","slug":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277","title":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347760/carlton-v-carlton-no-300158-jan-16-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347760","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-01-16","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton. Date: 1991-01-16. Machine-draft public headnote: John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900cf1ec-2df1-4e3c-bed7-8cb39b373920","slug":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277","title":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347760/carlton-v-carlton-no-300158-jan-16-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347760","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-01-16","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900cf1ec-2df1-4e3c-bed7-8cb39b373920","slug":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277","title":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347760/carlton-v-carlton-no-300158-jan-16-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347760","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-01-16","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: le through his employment for as long as the law allows or for as long as any benefit or pension plan allows, whichever is longer, at her expense. 6. Twenty-five percent of the husband's pension at Pratt and Whitney shall be conveyed to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared for approval by the Court by defendant's counsel. The pension benefit to be allocated shall be determined by multiplying the husband's total pension benefit at the time he retires by a fraction consisting of a denominator equal to the husband's total years of credit as a Plan participant and a numerator of 18. 7. The issue of perso"}
{"id":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900cf1ec-2df1-4e3c-bed7-8cb39b373920","slug":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277","title":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347760/carlton-v-carlton-no-300158-jan-16-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347760","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-01-16","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: balance on or before April 15, 1994. The award of property shall be effective upon the plaintiff's execution of the mortgage note and deed. 3. The defendant is awarded one hundred percent of the survivor (contingent) annuity provided for in the plaintiff's pension plan, and shall remain beneficiary of any death benefit of the pension for her lifetime. 4. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $100.00 per week until the death of either party or the defendant's remarriage. 5. The plaintiff shall cooperate in maintaining the defendant on the medical insurance plan available through his employment for as"}
{"id":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900cf1ec-2df1-4e3c-bed7-8cb39b373920","slug":"john-c-carlton-sr-v-ann-carlton-3343277","title":"John C. Carlton, Sr. v. Ann Carlton.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347760/carlton-v-carlton-no-300158-jan-16-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347760","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-01-16","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: his employment for as long as the law allows or for as long as any benefit or pension plan allows, whichever is longer, at her expense. 6. Twenty-five percent of the husband's pension at Pratt and Whitney shall be conveyed to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared for approval by the Court by defendant's counsel. The pension benefit to be allocated shall be determined by multiplying the husband's total pension benefit at the time he retires by a fraction consisting of a denominator equal to the husband's total years of credit as a Plan participant and a numerator of 18. 7. The issue of perso"}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski. Date: 2000-11-03. Machine-draft public headnote: John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: substantially in compliance with the FNMA forms for residential property within 30 days. 9. The Wife is the owner of 25% of the Husband's Textron pension valued as of June 30, 2000 and is named the alternate payee of that portion of his pension interest. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order enters to secure that payment. The court retains jurisdiction over the QDRO for purposes of its effectuation in accordance with these orders. 10. The parties shall each pay one half of the tuition and fees for the Holy Cross Parochial School. 11. The wife shall maintain the life insurance that she currently has for the benefit of the minor child. 12."}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s as a tool maker. During the time of his employment there have been periods where more or less overtime has been available. There is no overtime presently available to him. Therefore, his financial affidavit reflects his current earnings accurately. He has a pension with Textron. No evidence was presented to the court as to its value. A stream of cash valuation was given in the nature of the reporting that based upon earnings to date, Mr. Cierniewski will receive $711 per month from the pension upon his retirement. No actuarial calculation was provided to the court as to its present value based on that figure, the husb"}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: wife shall execute a promissory note and mortgage in a form substantially in compliance with the FNMA forms for residential property within 30 days. 9. The Wife is the owner of 25% of the Husband's Textron pension valued as of June 30, 2000 and is named the alternate payee of that portion of his pension interest. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order enters to secure that payment. The court retains jurisdiction over the QDRO for purposes of its effectuation in accordance with these orders. 10. The parties shall each pay one half of the tuition and fees for the Holy Cross Parochial School. 11. The wife shall maintain the li"}
{"id":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7961a564-a9c3-4056-8c8e-53a591c3fb78","slug":"john-cierniewski-v-anna-cierniewski-3340244","title":"John Cierniewski v. Anna Cierniewski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344729/cierniewski-v-cierniewski-no-fa99-049-28-28-98-nov-3-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-03","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ally in compliance with the FNMA forms for residential property within 30 days. 9. The Wife is the owner of 25% of the Husband's Textron pension valued as of June 30, 2000 and is named the alternate payee of that portion of his pension interest. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order enters to secure that payment. The court retains jurisdiction over the QDRO for purposes of its effectuation in accordance with these orders. 10. The parties shall each pay one half of the tuition and fees for the Holy Cross Parochial School. 11. The wife shall maintain the life insurance that she currently has for the benefit of the minor child. 12."}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0669046-50fa-4a53-956a-e018507ed737","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353553/coughlin-v-coughlin-fa-96-0388627-s-mar-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353553","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin Date: 1998-03-10. Machine-draft public headnote: John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0669046-50fa-4a53-956a-e018507ed737","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353553/coughlin-v-coughlin-fa-96-0388627-s-mar-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353553","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0669046-50fa-4a53-956a-e018507ed737","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353553/coughlin-v-coughlin-fa-96-0388627-s-mar-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353553","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: East Haven Fire Department is hereby vacated and the order is modified as follows: The defendant is awarded 50% of the accrued benefits due to the plaintiff as of the date of this ruling modifying the judgment. This division shall be accomplished through a qualified Domestic Relations Order or such other documents consistent with the terms of the pension plan. The defendant's counsel shall prepare such documents for the court's consideration as necessary. Dated this 10th day of March, 1998 Barry K. Stevens, Judge"}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0669046-50fa-4a53-956a-e018507ed737","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353553/coughlin-v-coughlin-fa-96-0388627-s-mar-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353553","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: RULING ON POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS The plaintiff John Coughlin's Motion to Correct and the defendant Cara Coughlin's Motion to Reopen are both granted to the limited extent that the court reopens and reconsiders its findings and orders regarding the plaintiff's pension from his employment with the East Haven Fire Department. The court's finding that the pension has a value of $49,000 is hereby vacated. The court heard evidence concerning the calculation which would be used to determine the basis and amount of the benefit payable under the plan, but after further review and consideration of this evidence, the court concl"}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a0669046-50fa-4a53-956a-e018507ed737","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3349077","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3353553/coughlin-v-coughlin-fa-96-0388627-s-mar-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3353553","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n Fire Department is hereby vacated and the order is modified as follows: The defendant is awarded 50% of the accrued benefits due to the plaintiff as of the date of this ruling modifying the judgment. This division shall be accomplished through a qualified Domestic Relations Order or such other documents consistent with the terms of the pension plan. The defendant's counsel shall prepare such documents for the court's consideration as necessary. Dated this 10th day of March, 1998 Barry K. Stevens, Judge"}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aa72e4f-d4e6-4c69-880d-8d1e3360a029","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366212/coughlin-v-coughlin-no-fa96-0388627s-jan-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366212","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-01-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin Date: 1998-01-26. Machine-draft public headnote: John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aa72e4f-d4e6-4c69-880d-8d1e3360a029","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366212/coughlin-v-coughlin-no-fa96-0388627s-jan-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366212","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-01-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aa72e4f-d4e6-4c69-880d-8d1e3360a029","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366212/coughlin-v-coughlin-no-fa96-0388627s-jan-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366212","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-01-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: receive full ownership of his electrical business and mutual fund. CT Page 1040 2. The defendant shall receive $20,000 of the plaintiff's pension from his employment with the East Haven Fire Department. This $20,000 division shall be accomplished through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or such other documents consistent with the terms of the pension plan. The defendant's counsel shall prepare such for the court's consideration as necessary. 3. The defendant shall receive full ownership of the 1988 Lincoln Town car and shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any liabilities or expenses relating to this vehicle. 4. The defendant shall rec"}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aa72e4f-d4e6-4c69-880d-8d1e3360a029","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366212/coughlin-v-coughlin-no-fa96-0388627s-jan-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366212","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-01-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: iness is almost entirely derived from the plaintiff's own individual skill and goodwill to an extent that the business has little or no value exclusive from his own personal efforts. The plaintiff also has a mutual fund valued at approximately $2,000, and a pension from his employment as a fireman. Although the plaintiff testified that he did not know the value of his pension, on the basis of the limited evidence that the value of the pension is based on the plaintiff's salary, the court finds that the pension has a present value of approximately $49,000. In regard to the defendant, she presently works part time and"}
{"id":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9aa72e4f-d4e6-4c69-880d-8d1e3360a029","slug":"john-coughlin-v-cara-coughlin-3361750","title":"John Coughlin v. Cara Coughlin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366212/coughlin-v-coughlin-no-fa96-0388627s-jan-26-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366212","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-01-26","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ull ownership of his electrical business and mutual fund. CT Page 1040 2. The defendant shall receive $20,000 of the plaintiff's pension from his employment with the East Haven Fire Department. This $20,000 division shall be accomplished through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or such other documents consistent with the terms of the pension plan. The defendant's counsel shall prepare such for the court's consideration as necessary. 3. The defendant shall receive full ownership of the 1988 Lincoln Town car and shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any liabilities or expenses relating to this vehicle. 4. The defendant shall rec"}
{"id":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0a74562-386c-4818-9b28-6505741120ec","slug":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377","title":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375834/daniels-v-daniels-no-fa-98-0410286-s-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375834","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels Date: 1999-04-29. Machine-draft public headnote: John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0a74562-386c-4818-9b28-6505741120ec","slug":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377","title":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375834/daniels-v-daniels-no-fa-98-0410286-s-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375834","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0a74562-386c-4818-9b28-6505741120ec","slug":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377","title":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375834/daniels-v-daniels-no-fa-98-0410286-s-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375834","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lf of the Fidelity Rollover retirement account shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit and one half of the Mass. Mutual IRA shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit based on their value as of the date this decision is filed. Both to be transferred by QDRO. Counsel for the defendant is responsible for preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise involving the documents. 14. The American Skandia annuity shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 15. The Mass. Mutual Annuity shown on the defendant's financial affidavit is aw"}
{"id":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0a74562-386c-4818-9b28-6505741120ec","slug":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377","title":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375834/daniels-v-daniels-no-fa-98-0410286-s-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375834","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: 000 and an equity of $77,000. He owns a 1994 Lincoln with fair market value of $9,000. He has miscellaneous checking and savings accounts with total value of $2,595. He also has a American Skandia Annuity account with a value of $97,934. The Fidelity rollover retirement account shown on his affidavit under the category of stocks, bonds and mutual funds should be under the category of deferred compensation plans. He has health insurance through the Connecticut Pipe Trades Health Fund Local 711. The cost to maintain COBRA benefits for the defendant under that insurance after the dissolution is $200 monthly. CT Page 4417 The plaint"}
{"id":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b0a74562-386c-4818-9b28-6505741120ec","slug":"john-daniels-v-madoria-daniels-3371377","title":"John Daniels v. Madoria Daniels","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375834/daniels-v-daniels-no-fa-98-0410286-s-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375834","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: . 14. The American Skandia annuity shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 15. The Mass. Mutual Annuity shown on the defendant's financial affidavit is awarded to the defendant. 16. The defendant is awarded one half the pension plan that the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the State of Connecticut. Counsel for the plaintiff is to prepare the necessary documents to arrange for this transfer and it is to be completed by May 28, 1999. 17. The defendant is awarded one half of whatever shares of stock the plaintiff still owns in US Air. Said transfers to be completed by May 28,"}
{"id":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23a6131-bd03-4089-9dcb-c1e4a02f1805","slug":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799","title":"John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350277/heuss-v-heuss-no-cv90-0109179-s-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350277","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss. Date: 1991-06-07. Machine-draft public headnote: John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23a6131-bd03-4089-9dcb-c1e4a02f1805","slug":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799","title":"John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350277/heuss-v-heuss-no-cv90-0109179-s-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350277","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23a6131-bd03-4089-9dcb-c1e4a02f1805","slug":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799","title":"John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350277/heuss-v-heuss-no-cv90-0109179-s-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350277","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r children. 3. The defendant shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the plaintiff's medical plan for a period of 36 months at the expense of the defendant. Other Property CT Page 5707 1. The defendant wife is awarded, by means of a QDRO, 40% of the plaintiff's vested pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the appropriate order is drafted. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to and is awarded $22,500 of the remaining $45,000 cash presently held by the defendant. The defendant shall transfer this sum to the plaintiff forthwith. 3. Each party shall retain those assets as listed"}
{"id":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d23a6131-bd03-4089-9dcb-c1e4a02f1805","slug":"john-heuss-v-patricia-heuss-3345799","title":"John Heuss v. Patricia Heuss.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350277/heuss-v-heuss-no-cv90-0109179-s-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350277","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the plaintiff's medical plan for a period of 36 months at the expense of the defendant. Other Property CT Page 5707 1. The defendant wife is awarded, by means of a QDRO, 40% of the plaintiff's vested pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the appropriate order is drafted. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to and is awarded $22,500 of the remaining $45,000 cash presently held by the defendant. The defendant shall transfer this sum to the plaintiff forthwith. 3. Each party shall retain those assets as listed on their respective financial affidavi"}
{"id":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b822e646-5a43-49de-bf10-b0389e3813a9","slug":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230","title":"John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346714/hart-v-hart-no-fa-96-0389036s-jul-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-07-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart Date: 1998-07-10. Machine-draft public headnote: John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b822e646-5a43-49de-bf10-b0389e3813a9","slug":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230","title":"John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346714/hart-v-hart-no-fa-96-0389036s-jul-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-07-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b822e646-5a43-49de-bf10-b0389e3813a9","slug":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230","title":"John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346714/hart-v-hart-no-fa-96-0389036s-jul-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-07-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ounts, shall belong to the party who has possession or ownership of such property at this time. 4. Deferred Compensation Plans. The husband and the wife shall divide equally the husband's Flex Extra Tax Qualified SEPP and IRA accounts accomplished through a qualified domestic relations order or such other documents consistent with the terms of these accounts. The wife's counsel shall prepare such documents for the court's consideration as necessary. CT Page 7950 5. Life Insurance. The husband shall maintain and pay for the life insurance listed on his financial affidavit naming the minor children as beneficiaries until the youngest child reac"}
{"id":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b822e646-5a43-49de-bf10-b0389e3813a9","slug":"john-k-hart-v-ann-j-hart-3342230","title":"John K. Hart v. Ann J. Hart","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346714/hart-v-hart-no-fa-96-0389036s-jul-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346714","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-07-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll belong to the party who has possession or ownership of such property at this time. 4. Deferred Compensation Plans. The husband and the wife shall divide equally the husband's Flex Extra Tax Qualified SEPP and IRA accounts accomplished through a qualified domestic relations order or such other documents consistent with the terms of these accounts. The wife's counsel shall prepare such documents for the court's consideration as necessary. CT Page 7950 5. Life Insurance. The husband shall maintain and pay for the life insurance listed on his financial affidavit naming the minor children as beneficiaries until the youngest child reac"}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski. Date: 2000-10-10. Machine-draft public headnote: John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The defendant shall retain her interest in her 401K account. The defendant is awarded a total of $391,779 of the retirement accounts held CT Page 12594 by the plaintiff in order to equalize their retirement accounts. The defendant shall draft, if necessary, a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the plaintiff for his review and to the court for its approval. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to enforce this provision. 9. The defendant is awarded ownership of the furnishings, equipment and personal property presently located at 119 Hartford Road, Salem, Connecticut, except"}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of the $33,850 worth of jewelry currently in her possession and her interest in the real property at Captains Beach, New London, Connecticut. 8. The defendant shall retain her interest in her 401K account. The defendant is awarded a total of $391,779 of the retirement accounts held CT Page 12594 by the plaintiff in order to equalize their retirement accounts. The defendant shall draft, if necessary, a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QDRO) to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the plaintiff for his review and to the court for its approval. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to enforce this provisi"}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: age gross income that the plaintiff has received from his business over the past three years, I find his current gross income from his dental practice to be $325,000 annually. In addition, the plaintiff receives rental income of $5,980 and income from an army pension of $988 annually. The defendant is fifty-seven years old and she suffers from a disability for which she receives disability income. The defendant has permanent nerve damage from shingles and arthritis. She annually receives disability insurance income in the amount of $24,756 and social security disability income of $12,648. Prior to her disability in 19"}
{"id":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cc8868a4-373d-49ef-9d3d-201eafaea77d","slug":"john-kozlowski-v-sandra-kozlowski-3350375","title":"John Kozlowski v. Sandra Kozlowski.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3354849/kozlowski-v-kozlowski-no-fa99-0434893-oct-10-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3354849","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-10","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e time of trial are no longer available. Accordingly, in rendering property distribution orders, I have not recognized the relinquishment of those assets by the defendant and have deemed them to be assets available to the defendant. The defendant also has a 401K account with a present value of $91,376, a life insurance policy with a cash value of $6,395 and various bank accounts totaling $10,408. In addition, the defendant recently purchased two items of jewelry with a combined appraised value of $33,850. Finally, the defendant possesses an interest in real estate in New London worth $3,548. In determining the or"}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott. Date: 1991-06-07. Machine-draft public headnote: John Lescott v. Robin Lescott. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the proceeds of the 401K Plan which the plaintiff will receive shortly will provide the plaintiff husband with a stream of income for child support purposes and for maintaining the real CT Page 5692 estate until such time as the husband obtains employment. QDRO Pension Plan The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to the defendant's New York Daily News Pension Plan in the amount of 30%. The court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter. Life Insurance The husband shall provide and maintain life insurance in the amount of $150,000 with the wife and minor chi"}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: proceeds of the 401K Plan which the plaintiff will receive shortly will provide the plaintiff husband with a stream of income for child support purposes and for maintaining the real CT Page 5692 estate until such time as the husband obtains employment. QDRO Pension Plan The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to the defendant's New York Daily News Pension Plan in the amount of 30%. The court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter. Life Insurance The husband shall provide and maintain life insurance in the amount of $150,000 with the wife and minor children no"}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d to her IRA. 2. The defendant wife shall be entitled to the furniture or furnishings contained in the marital home. 3. Each party shall be entitled to the motor vehicle presently in their respective possession. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to his 401K Plan and the remaining assets as noted on his financial affidavit unless otherwise disposed of herein. It is the court's intent that the proceeds of the 401K Plan which the plaintiff will receive shortly will provide the plaintiff husband with a stream of income for child support purposes and for maintaining the real CT Page 5692 estate until such time as t"}
{"id":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d6c31d70-42b9-4eab-be1e-d1daad98c035","slug":"john-lescott-v-robin-lescott-3337445","title":"John Lescott v. Robin Lescott.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341932/lescott-v-lescott-no-fa90-0109205-jun-7-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341932","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-06-07","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rtly will provide the plaintiff husband with a stream of income for child support purposes and for maintaining the real CT Page 5692 estate until such time as the husband obtains employment. QDRO Pension Plan The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to the defendant's New York Daily News Pension Plan in the amount of 30%. The court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter. Life Insurance The husband shall provide and maintain life insurance in the amount of $150,000 with the wife and minor children noted as irrevocable beneficiaries thereon, for so long as the plaintiff husband"}
{"id":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b08b5ff-d551-4154-9cef-fe53f5247e0d","slug":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351","title":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331850/gasparine-v-gasparine-no-fa97-0401093s-jan-6-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-06","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine Date: 1999-01-06. Machine-draft public headnote: John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b08b5ff-d551-4154-9cef-fe53f5247e0d","slug":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351","title":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331850/gasparine-v-gasparine-no-fa97-0401093s-jan-6-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-06","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b08b5ff-d551-4154-9cef-fe53f5247e0d","slug":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351","title":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331850/gasparine-v-gasparine-no-fa97-0401093s-jan-6-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-06","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: wife shall retain the funds in the parties' joint savings account and joint checking account. (d) The parties shall divide equally the deferred compensation plans listed on their respective financial affidavits, jointly with rights of survivorship, through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of these plans. These documents shall be executed by the parties' attorneys for the court to review within sixty days. (e) Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain all of the assets in their possession as listed and identified on their respective financial affidavits. CT Page 711 8."}
{"id":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b08b5ff-d551-4154-9cef-fe53f5247e0d","slug":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351","title":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331850/gasparine-v-gasparine-no-fa97-0401093s-jan-6-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-06","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: l retain the funds in the parties' joint savings account and joint checking account. (d) The parties shall divide equally the deferred compensation plans listed on their respective financial affidavits, jointly with rights of survivorship, through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or such other documents consistent with the terms of these plans. These documents shall be executed by the parties' attorneys for the court to review within sixty days. (e) Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain all of the assets in their possession as listed and identified on their respective financial affidavits. CT Page 711 8."}
{"id":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8b08b5ff-d551-4154-9cef-fe53f5247e0d","slug":"john-m-gasparine-v-barbara-e-gasparine-3327351","title":"John M. Gasparine v. Barbara E. Gasparine","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331850/gasparine-v-gasparine-no-fa97-0401093s-jan-6-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331850","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-06","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: the wife's cohabitation as CT Page 710 defined by statute. (d) The husband shall pay to the wife $10,000 as lump sum alimony which may be applied by the wife against her outstanding attorney fees. This lump sum payment shall be made within sixty days. 7. Property Divisions. (a) The parties shall list for sale the marital home located at 60 Maple Drive, Woodbridge, Connecticut, when the minor child graduates from high school or becomes nineteen years old whichever first occurs. The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be split between the parties with the husband receiving 40% and the wife receiving 60% of these"}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk. Docket: of years and is well liked and respected. Date: 2002-10-01. Machine-draft public headnote: John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: licies. PENSIONS, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share in the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The court has taken into consideration Plaintiff's argument that the Wife will collect social security in addition to her share of the Plaintiff's p"}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The court has taken into consideration Plaintiff's argument that the Wife will collect social security in addition to her share of the Plaintiff's pension. This fact is outweighed by the Wife's far inferior earning capacity and the ability of the Plaintiff, a police officer, to retire well before age 65 and earn a second pension and/or generate social security credit in his name. MEDICAL INSURANCE AND UNREIMBURSED MEDICALS — CHILDREN The Plaintiff shall maintain, at his sole expense, the present med"}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): property of the Husband. The parties shall both provide to the other proof of said insurance on annual bases. Either party may substitute a term life insurance policy with the same face value as above for their current policies. PENSIONS, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share in the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each part"}
{"id":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24930b62-2203-4594-b309-626a6d5c365d","slug":"john-newkirk-v-melanie-newkirk-3365808","title":"John Newkirk v. Melanie Newkirk.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370268/newkirk-v-newkirk-no-fa00-0082003s-oct-1-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370268","extracted_docket_number":"of years and is well liked and respected","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-01","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: PENSIONS, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share in the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The court has taken into consideration Plaintiff's argument that the Wife will collect social security in addition to her share of the Plaintiff's p"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c550f54d-e153-454c-a404-f5129d524f95","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341154/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-93-0718344-s-nov-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec. Date: 2000-11-28. Machine-draft public headnote: John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c550f54d-e153-454c-a404-f5129d524f95","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341154/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-93-0718344-s-nov-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c550f54d-e153-454c-a404-f5129d524f95","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341154/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-93-0718344-s-nov-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nsfer to the defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court1s decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the plan administrator. Both parties are ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate said transfer. The provisions of this paragraph encompass a property order and not alimony. The court shall retain jurisdictions to carry out the provision of this paragraph. 6. AUTOMOBILES Each party shall have all right, title and interest in"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c550f54d-e153-454c-a404-f5129d524f95","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341154/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-93-0718344-s-nov-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): items of personal property from the family residence. 4. SERP PLAN The plaintiff shall have all right, title and interest in and to the Serp Plan valued in the approximate amount of $4,100.00 as of the date of the dissolution of the marriage. 5. IRA AND 401K PLANS The plaintiff is hereby ordered to transfer to the defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court1s decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c550f54d-e153-454c-a404-f5129d524f95","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3336666","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341154/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-93-0718344-s-nov-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court1s decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the plan administrator. Both parties are ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate said transfer. The provisions of this paragraph encompass a property order and not alimony. The court shall retain jurisdictions to carry out the provision of this paragraph. 6. AUTOMOBILES Each party shall have all right, title and interest in"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c5d47e-09a2-404f-a6a8-9b18e2ee0a9d","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371496/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-98-0718344-s-nov-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371496","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec. Date: 2000-11-17. Machine-draft public headnote: John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c5d47e-09a2-404f-a6a8-9b18e2ee0a9d","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371496/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-98-0718344-s-nov-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371496","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c5d47e-09a2-404f-a6a8-9b18e2ee0a9d","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371496/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-98-0718344-s-nov-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371496","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nsfer to the defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court's decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the plan administrator. Both parties are ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate said transfer. The provisions of this paragraph encompass a property order and not alimony. The court shall retain jurisdictions to carry out the provision of this paragraph. 6. AUTOMOBILES Each party shall have all right, title and interest in"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c5d47e-09a2-404f-a6a8-9b18e2ee0a9d","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371496/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-98-0718344-s-nov-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371496","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): items of personal property from the family residence. 4. SERP PLAN The plaintiff shall have all right, title and interest in and to the Serp Plan valued in the approximate amount of $4,100.00 as of the date of the dissolution of the marriage. 5. IRA AND 401K PLANS The plaintiff is hereby ordered to transfer to the defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court's decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the"}
{"id":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"24c5d47e-09a2-404f-a6a8-9b18e2ee0a9d","slug":"john-p-havanec-v-mary-ellen-havanec-3367036","title":"John P. Havanec v. Mary Ellen Havanec.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371496/havanec-v-havanec-no-fa-98-0718344-s-nov-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371496","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: he defendant 40% of the value of his IRA plan at Selbert and Co. and 401k plan at Konica, Inc. as of August 30, 2000, the date of the court's decision dissolving the marriage of the parties. Said transfer shall be effectuated by an assignment and/or Qualified Domestic Relations Order as required by the plan administrator. Both parties are ordered to sign any documents necessary to effectuate said transfer. The provisions of this paragraph encompass a property order and not alimony. The court shall retain jurisdictions to carry out the provision of this paragraph. 6. AUTOMOBILES Each party shall have all right, title and interest in"}
{"id":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15cd4925-95b1-4a0a-8af9-73dd1cad4ccd","slug":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869","title":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361335/mosher-v-mosher-no-fa-98-0354755-mar-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361335","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher Date: 1999-03-09. Machine-draft public headnote: John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15cd4925-95b1-4a0a-8af9-73dd1cad4ccd","slug":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869","title":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361335/mosher-v-mosher-no-fa-98-0354755-mar-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361335","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15cd4925-95b1-4a0a-8af9-73dd1cad4ccd","slug":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869","title":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361335/mosher-v-mosher-no-fa-98-0354755-mar-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361335","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: to the court for final determination if mediation is unsuccessful. Any items not removed by the Wife within 60 days from date shall be considered abandoned. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife, from his Cargill 401k plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by his counsel, the sum of $10,000. Said transfer is to be without tax consequences to either party. In the event the Wife must establish an IRA to receive said funds, she shall do so without delay. CT Page 2956 LIABILITIES The balance due on the two First Union obligations and the Chase Visa credit card shall be paid by the Husband out of the p"}
{"id":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15cd4925-95b1-4a0a-8af9-73dd1cad4ccd","slug":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869","title":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361335/mosher-v-mosher-no-fa-98-0354755-mar-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361335","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): graduate. She attended college for 3 months and has a real estate license. During the trial, the Husband testified that he brought into the marriage a Prudential Securities stock brokerage account containing $184,245.76 (Plaintiff's Exhibit D) and a Cargill 401k plan account with a balance of approximately $68,000 (no documentation of that account at the time of the marriage was produced). As of January 31, 1999, the balance in the Prudential account was $9,652.38 (Plaintiff's Exhibit E) and, as of December 31, 1998, the balance in the 401k account was $101,104.60 (Plaintiff's Exhibit L). The money brought into the"}
{"id":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15cd4925-95b1-4a0a-8af9-73dd1cad4ccd","slug":"john-robert-mosher-v-alexandra-mosher-3356869","title":"John Robert Mosher v. Alexandra Mosher","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361335/mosher-v-mosher-no-fa-98-0354755-mar-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361335","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-03-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rt for final determination if mediation is unsuccessful. Any items not removed by the Wife within 60 days from date shall be considered abandoned. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife, from his Cargill 401k plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by his counsel, the sum of $10,000. Said transfer is to be without tax consequences to either party. In the event the Wife must establish an IRA to receive said funds, she shall do so without delay. CT Page 2956 LIABILITIES The balance due on the two First Union obligations and the Chase Visa credit card shall be paid by the Husband out of the p"}
{"id":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1a5a5b-4a4c-4de5-b20c-a612720e769d","slug":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229","title":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365692/guzallis-v-guzallis-no-0116014-oct-26-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365692","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-26","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis Date: 1999-10-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1a5a5b-4a4c-4de5-b20c-a612720e769d","slug":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229","title":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365692/guzallis-v-guzallis-no-0116014-oct-26-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365692","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-26","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1a5a5b-4a4c-4de5-b20c-a612720e769d","slug":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229","title":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365692/guzallis-v-guzallis-no-0116014-oct-26-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365692","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-26","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and handle the debt thereon. The defendant may retain her personal belongings including her fur coat and jewelry. CT Page 14253 The defendant shall receive and have 30% of the current vested value of the plaintiffs Kendland pension and retirement plan by QDRO. The Court enters no orders as to attorney's fees, for each party shall be responsible for their own. Each party shall be responsible for any debts remaining after the application of the $10,000.00 as shown on their financial affidavits. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown and the parties are declared to be"}
{"id":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1a5a5b-4a4c-4de5-b20c-a612720e769d","slug":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229","title":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365692/guzallis-v-guzallis-no-0116014-oct-26-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365692","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-26","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: s total debt of $37,727.00. CT Page 14248 The plaintiff shows a 0 equity in the premises known as 16 Oak Street in Norwich and a negative equity in a 1995 Dodge Caravan motor vehicle. The plaintiff reflects the $31,696.00 in the escrow account, values his retirement plan at $9,182.00 and his Kendland pension plan at $25,155.00. From the health form the Court finds that this was the first marriage for both parties and that the education of each extended through completing high school. Discussion This is a marriage of 7 years. As indicated, the first marriage for both. The marriage has resulted in three small children;"}
{"id":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0f1a5a5b-4a4c-4de5-b20c-a612720e769d","slug":"jon-guzallis-v-elizabeth-guzallis-3361229","title":"Jon Guzallis v. Elizabeth Guzallis","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365692/guzallis-v-guzallis-no-0116014-oct-26-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365692","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-26","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as offered to the court as concerns either the liquidated property at Plain Hill Road or the property still remaining in the name of the plaintiff at 16 Oak Street in Norwich. It is the position of the defendant that she is entitled to 50% of the plaintiffs pension benefits which will be vested in CT Page 14245 January of the year 2000. The defendant presently has health insurance incident to her employment with Big Y and indicated to the Court that the children could be provided for under that umbrella of insurance. The defendant's sole means of transportation at this time is a 1989 Ford Tempo, which she values a"}
{"id":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25f37a06-b5d0-47fb-97f0-00efeb487210","slug":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188","title":"Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom","citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781188/jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2781188","extracted_docket_number":"A-4565-12T4 JORDANA ELROM","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-02-23","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom Citation: 439 N.J. Super. 424. Extracted reporter citation: 439 N.J. Super. 424. Docket: A-4565-12T4 JORDANA ELROM. Date: 2015-02-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25f37a06-b5d0-47fb-97f0-00efeb487210","slug":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188","title":"Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom","citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781188/jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2781188","extracted_docket_number":"A-4565-12T4 JORDANA ELROM","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-02-23","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"25f37a06-b5d0-47fb-97f0-00efeb487210","slug":"jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom-2781188","title":"Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom","citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781188/jordana-elrom-v-elad-elrom/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2781188","extracted_docket_number":"A-4565-12T4 JORDANA ELROM","extracted_reporter_citation":"439 N.J. Super. 424","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-02-23","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4565-12T4 JORDANA ELROM, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff-Respondent, February 23, 2015 v. APPELLATE DIVISION ELAD ELROM, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________ Submitted November 3, 2014 - Decided February 23, 2015 Before Judges Lihotz, St. John and Rothstadt. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-2214-11. Townsend, Tomaio & Newmark, LLC, attorneys for appellant (John E. Clancy, on the briefs). Jordana Elrom, respondent pro se. The opinion of the c"}
{"id":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34732dc3-9239-4ffd-b42e-ebcf8b6c5d88","slug":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241","title":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333738/birch-v-birch-no-fa99-0066730s-feb-1-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-01","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch Date: 2000-02-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34732dc3-9239-4ffd-b42e-ebcf8b6c5d88","slug":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241","title":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333738/birch-v-birch-no-fa99-0066730s-feb-1-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-01","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34732dc3-9239-4ffd-b42e-ebcf8b6c5d88","slug":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241","title":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333738/birch-v-birch-no-fa99-0066730s-feb-1-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-01","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tled to the 1998 Buick motor vehicle and shall be solely responsible for the loan thereon. 5. The plaintiff shall be entitled to his G.D.C. stock options. PENSIONS 1. The wife shall be entitled to 40% of the husband's 401(k), to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The wife shall be entitled to her 403b account and her State of Connecticut teacher's retirement account. LIFE INSURANCE 1. The plaintiff shall continue to maintain the life insurances as set forth on his financial affidavit and shall name the minor child as an irrevocable beneficiary thereon for so long as he has an obligation for child support."}
{"id":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34732dc3-9239-4ffd-b42e-ebcf8b6c5d88","slug":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241","title":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333738/birch-v-birch-no-fa99-0066730s-feb-1-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-01","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: he plaintiff shall be entitled to his G.D.C. stock options. PENSIONS 1. The wife shall be entitled to 40% of the husband's 401(k), to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The wife shall be entitled to her 403b account and her State of Connecticut teacher's retirement account. LIFE INSURANCE 1. The plaintiff shall continue to maintain the life insurances as set forth on his financial affidavit and shall name the minor child as an irrevocable beneficiary thereon for so long as he has an obligation for child support. This provision shall be modifiable. 2. The defendant shall continue to maintain the life insurances as set fo"}
{"id":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"34732dc3-9239-4ffd-b42e-ebcf8b6c5d88","slug":"joseph-birch-v-ann-birch-3329241","title":"Joseph Birch v. Ann Birch","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333738/birch-v-birch-no-fa99-0066730s-feb-1-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-01","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): le. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to the 1998 Buick motor vehicle and shall be solely responsible for the loan thereon. 5. The plaintiff shall be entitled to his G.D.C. stock options. PENSIONS 1. The wife shall be entitled to 40% of the husband's 401(k), to be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The wife shall be entitled to her 403b account and her State of Connecticut teacher's retirement account. LIFE INSURANCE 1. The plaintiff shall continue to maintain the life insurances as set forth on his financial affidavit and shall name the minor child as an irrevocable beneficiary thereon for so long as he has"}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya Date: 2001-12-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: that husband's retirement benefits would be divided equally between the parties based on a coverture formula, with wife named as a surviving spouse with the right to receive benefits for her lifetime, based upon her life expectancy. Wife filed a motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), asking the court to allow her to take her benefits by way of a qualified joint and survivor annuity. Husband objected, saying that the retirement plan does not permit wife to take her retirement benefits by way of a qualified joint and survivor annuity, and that if wife were granted this annuity, he would lose the right to take his pension in a lump"}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: m the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and appellant's brief. Appellant-husband Joseph Kostya and wife Barbara Kostya were granted a divorce, the terms of which were taken from a separation agreement between the parties. The parties agreed that husband's retirement benefits would be divided equally between the parties based on a coverture formula, with wife named as a surviving spouse with the right to receive benefits for her lifetime, based upon her life expectancy. Wife filed a motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), asking the court to allow her to take her benefits by way of a qualified joint and survivor"}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: oint and survivor annuity. Husband objected, saying that the retirement plan does not permit wife to take her retirement benefits by way of a qualified joint and survivor annuity, and that if wife were granted this annuity, he would lose the right to take his pension in a lump sum payment. The magistrate found that two post retirement benefits were possible under the circumstances. The first was the joint and survivorship approach where the participant is required to elect benefits under a reduced joint and survivor annuity. The second approach divides the annuity into two distinct components, and the alternate payee"}
{"id":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d88a216-0605-4a0b-a0ba-7d656b408cd8","slug":"joseph-kostya-v-barbara-kostya-3766798","title":"Joseph Kostya v. Barbara Kostya","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4011750/kostya-v-kostya-unpublished-decision-12-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4011750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-12-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: e possible under the circumstances. The first was the joint and survivorship approach where the participant is required to elect benefits under a reduced joint and survivor annuity. The second approach divides the annuity into two distinct components, and the alternate payee is entitled to a share of the pension benefits based on life expectancy. The magistrate went on to find that neither party presented evidence showing which type of survivorship benefits were available under husband's pension plan. Without this evidence, the magistrate found the court could not adopt a QDRO. Husband filed unopposed objections to the magist"}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia Date: 1998-02-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: om the date this decision is filed. 10. The court awards to the defendant 25 percent of the CT Page 1768 pension benefit to which the plaintiff is entitled from his employment at Pepsi Cola, Inc., as of the date he retires. This division is to take place by QDRO that is to be prepared by counsel for the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. D. BY WAY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES 1. No attorney's are awarded in favor of either party. E. PENDENTE LITE ORDERS 1. All pendente lite orders remain in effect until the date this decision is filed. Any arr"}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: life and accidental death. If she retires from Grolier, Inc. on her normal retirement date of March 1, 2028, her estimated projected lifetime monthly retirement income is $504.90. Her estimated monthly social security is $656. In order to be vested under the retirement plan, she has to have five years of service and she is therefore vested. If her employment ends before retirement, she will receive beginning at age sixty-five the benefit she has earned under the plan. She can elect to receive her benefit as early as age fifty-five. Benefits received prior to age sixty-five would be reduced. As of April 30, 1997, her accrued mo"}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: plaintiff presently leases a 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlas. The lease calls for twenty-four monthly payments of $294.19, each commencing August 29, 1996. The plaintiff paid down $3265 on the lease at the time of signing. The plaintiff's financial affidavit shows a pension plan with Pepsi Cola with a value of $5361. That value was obtained from his employer in approximately August of 1997. The plaintiff is vested in that plan. At age sixty-five, on August 1, 2027, the plaintiff would have the option of either choosing a single lump sum payment estimated at $427,800 or choosing an annual income option. The plaintiff's monthl"}
{"id":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73f62861-c681-4f41-8161-c887e9380ef8","slug":"joseph-v-raia-v-valerie-anne-raia-3327260","title":"Joseph v. Raia v. Valerie Anne Raia","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331759/raia-v-raia-no-32-48-77-feb-10-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331759","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-10","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 00 to $1000 monthly if she were to rent an apartment. That amount would include utilities. This court has considered the provision of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provision of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders. A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved, and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. The plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant alimony in the sum"}
{"id":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af29c989-e87f-4afe-9f83-c475509f1b29","slug":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836","title":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335332/burrill-v-burrill-no-fa-95-0380969-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335332","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill Date: 1997-10-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af29c989-e87f-4afe-9f83-c475509f1b29","slug":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836","title":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335332/burrill-v-burrill-no-fa-95-0380969-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335332","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af29c989-e87f-4afe-9f83-c475509f1b29","slug":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836","title":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335332/burrill-v-burrill-no-fa-95-0380969-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335332","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and payable on October 31, 1998; 3. Periodic alimony to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of CT Page 10536 $100.00 per week commencing November 1, 1997, to terminate on the death of either party or remarriage of the plaintiff; 4. By qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the value of the defendant's pension with IBM, valued as of September 30, 1997. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the provision for purposes of its effectuation. 5. The plaintiff has restored to her, her prior name of Joyce Ethel Clancy. 6. Each party shall pay the debts shown or their respective financ"}
{"id":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af29c989-e87f-4afe-9f83-c475509f1b29","slug":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836","title":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335332/burrill-v-burrill-no-fa-95-0380969-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335332","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: davits. Mr. Burrill had worked at IBM for 25 years, leaving in 1988, two years after marriage. He left with a severance pay of $250,000.00. None of that was shared with the plaintiff. The only asset of consequence remaining to the parties is the defendant's pension. While no evidence of current value has been presented, it will apparently pay out at $1600 per month when the defendant is 65 years old. The court, having considered the evidence and the statutory criteria for the dissolution of marriage award of counsel fees, and the alimony (C.G.S. § 46b-82 ) and assignment of the marital estate (C.G.S. § 46b"}
{"id":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"af29c989-e87f-4afe-9f83-c475509f1b29","slug":"joyce-ethel-burrill-v-eugene-burrill-3330836","title":"Joyce Ethel Burrill v. Eugene Burrill","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335332/burrill-v-burrill-no-fa-95-0380969-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335332","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: le on October 31, 1998; 3. Periodic alimony to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of CT Page 10536 $100.00 per week commencing November 1, 1997, to terminate on the death of either party or remarriage of the plaintiff; 4. By qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the value of the defendant's pension with IBM, valued as of September 30, 1997. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the provision for purposes of its effectuation. 5. The plaintiff has restored to her, her prior name of Joyce Ethel Clancy. 6. Each party shall pay the debts shown or their respective financ"}
{"id":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20d5bbd8-d14a-49b4-a20e-5817ac6969fa","slug":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186","title":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361652/jensen-v-jensen-no-fa92-0125515-s-apr-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen Date: 1993-04-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20d5bbd8-d14a-49b4-a20e-5817ac6969fa","slug":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186","title":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361652/jensen-v-jensen-no-fa92-0125515-s-apr-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20d5bbd8-d14a-49b4-a20e-5817ac6969fa","slug":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186","title":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361652/jensen-v-jensen-no-fa92-0125515-s-apr-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e wife is in occupancy exceeding $250 is to be paid by the husband but reimbursed to him out of the closing proceeds before the net proceeds are divided. Any repair under $250 shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the wife. 7. The court issues a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning to the wife $64,000 from the husband's Pfizer Savings and Investment Plan. The wife's attorney is to prepare a savings and investment plan (QDRO) for the court's signature. The court retains jurisdiction. 8. The court issues a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning to the wife 20% of the husband's accrued benefit in the Pfize"}
{"id":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20d5bbd8-d14a-49b4-a20e-5817ac6969fa","slug":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186","title":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361652/jensen-v-jensen-no-fa92-0125515-s-apr-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: saved no money, but the husband was saving through his Pfizer Plans. During the course of the marriage the husband did a substantial amount of traveling. He was away 40% to 50% of the time as his job called for traveling. The wife has a masters degree with no pension and no insurance and no benefits in her current job. The court has taken into consideration all of the statutory criteria under 46b-81 , the assignment of property and transfer of title statute; 46b-82 , the alimony statute and 46b-62 , the attorney's fee statute in making these orders. In addition, the court has taken into consideration the testimony of"}
{"id":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"20d5bbd8-d14a-49b4-a20e-5817ac6969fa","slug":"joyce-jensen-v-dennis-jensen-3357186","title":"Joyce Jensen v. Dennis Jensen","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361652/jensen-v-jensen-no-fa92-0125515-s-apr-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361652","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in occupancy exceeding $250 is to be paid by the husband but reimbursed to him out of the closing proceeds before the net proceeds are divided. Any repair under $250 shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the wife. 7. The court issues a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning to the wife $64,000 from the husband's Pfizer Savings and Investment Plan. The wife's attorney is to prepare a savings and investment plan (QDRO) for the court's signature. The court retains jurisdiction. 8. The court issues a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning to the wife 20% of the husband's accrued benefit in the Pfize"}
{"id":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b03ff4bb-b5cf-48bc-8793-f9dbe6043ee2","slug":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508","title":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360974/kuhn-v-kuhn-no-0120780-oct-16-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360974","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-16","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn. Date: 2001-10-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b03ff4bb-b5cf-48bc-8793-f9dbe6043ee2","slug":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508","title":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360974/kuhn-v-kuhn-no-0120780-oct-16-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360974","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-16","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b03ff4bb-b5cf-48bc-8793-f9dbe6043ee2","slug":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508","title":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360974/kuhn-v-kuhn-no-0120780-oct-16-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360974","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-16","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ch party shall execute any necessary documents to transfer title of said automobile to the other party and bear the expenses of ownership of their automobile and hold the other harmless therefrom. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of the present value of the defendant's pension plan at General Dynamics. He shall also transfer to the plaintiff $50,000.00 of his General Dynamics, Electric Boat SSIP order. The above shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by plaintiff's attorney. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any tax consequences fr"}
{"id":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b03ff4bb-b5cf-48bc-8793-f9dbe6043ee2","slug":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508","title":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360974/kuhn-v-kuhn-no-0120780-oct-16-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360974","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-16","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: bile to the other party and bear the expenses of ownership of their automobile and hold the other harmless therefrom. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of the present value of the defendant's pension plan at General Dynamics. He shall also transfer to the plaintiff $50,000.00 of his General Dynamics, Electric Boat SSIP order. The above shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by plaintiff's attorney. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any tax consequences from said transfers. The parties shall share equally t"}
{"id":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b03ff4bb-b5cf-48bc-8793-f9dbe6043ee2","slug":"judith-kuhn-v-mark-kuhn-3356508","title":"Judith Kuhn v. Mark Kuhn.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360974/kuhn-v-kuhn-no-0120780-oct-16-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360974","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-10-16","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hall execute any necessary documents to transfer title of said automobile to the other party and bear the expenses of ownership of their automobile and hold the other harmless therefrom. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of the present value of the defendant's pension plan at General Dynamics. He shall also transfer to the plaintiff $50,000.00 of his General Dynamics, Electric Boat SSIP order. The above shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by plaintiff's attorney. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any tax consequences fr"}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin Date: 1991-11-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: limited to mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and upkeep. 2. The plaintiff shall receive a fifty (50%) percent interest in and to the defendant's pension plan with Sterling Drug, Inc., including the basic and supplemental benefit, and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter to effectuate the division of the pension plan. 3. The plaintiff shall receive fifty (50%) interest in and to the defendant's 401K with Sterling Drug, Inc., and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter to effectuate the division of the 401K. 4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equal to one-third (1/3) of any an"}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: t's 401K plan had a value of $128,000 on that date. The defendant has an IRA with a value of $22,000 and the plaintiff's IRA has a value of $6,000. Finally, there is a life insurance policy with a present cash surrender value of approximately $6,000.00. The pension plan is fully vested. It provides a lifetime pension benefit: $2,400 per month attributable to the basic plan and $1,200 per month attributable to a supplemental plan allowed in conjunction with the defendant's severance contract. The defendant owns a one-half unit in a tax shelter plan, Warren Properties Limited Partnership, which appears to have no pres"}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): t the home has a present market value of $340,000. There is a stock portfolio with a valuation as of April 30, 1991 of $412,814. CT Page 9798 The value of the deferred compensation plan previously mentioned was $151,892 as of March 15, 1991. The defendant's 401K plan had a value of $128,000 on that date. The defendant has an IRA with a value of $22,000 and the plaintiff's IRA has a value of $6,000. Finally, there is a life insurance policy with a present cash surrender value of approximately $6,000.00. The pension plan is fully vested. It provides a lifetime pension benefit: $2,400 per month attributable to the b"}
{"id":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4fbfb6f3-88dd-440e-8be0-c209591ccc55","slug":"judith-rodwin-v-roger-rodwin-3336691","title":"Judith Rodwin v. Roger Rodwin","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341179/rodwin-v-rodwin-no-fa-89-0104171-s-nov-15-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341179","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-11-15","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and upkeep. 2. The plaintiff shall receive a fifty (50%) percent interest in and to the defendant's pension plan with Sterling Drug, Inc., including the basic and supplemental benefit, and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter to effectuate the division of the pension plan. 3. The plaintiff shall receive fifty (50%) interest in and to the defendant's 401K with Sterling Drug, Inc., and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall enter to effectuate the division of the 401K. 4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equal to one-third (1/3) of any an"}
{"id":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ce68ac5-0c0f-4ca7-84fe-f45b7f23d0cf","slug":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483","title":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330983/borgman-v-borgman-no-fa93-0134945-s-jul-14-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330983","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-14","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman Date: 1995-07-14. Machine-draft public headnote: June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ce68ac5-0c0f-4ca7-84fe-f45b7f23d0cf","slug":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483","title":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330983/borgman-v-borgman-no-fa93-0134945-s-jul-14-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330983","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-14","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ce68ac5-0c0f-4ca7-84fe-f45b7f23d0cf","slug":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483","title":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330983/borgman-v-borgman-no-fa93-0134945-s-jul-14-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330983","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-14","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nd the current mortgage shall be paid. The net proceeds shall be equally divided between the parties. (4) The stock investments and Cornerstone bank accounts shall be split equally between the parties. (5) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his retirement and annuity plans, valued as of June 30, 1995. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plans, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or"}
{"id":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ce68ac5-0c0f-4ca7-84fe-f45b7f23d0cf","slug":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483","title":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330983/borgman-v-borgman-no-fa93-0134945-s-jul-14-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330983","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-14","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: nterim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plans, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or state law relating to retirement/pension plans. (6) The defendant is awarded his Ford automobile, his motorcycle and his credit union bank account. (7) The parties shall divide their personal property, not covered herein, by agreement. The court reserves jurisdiction to decide this issue if the parties fail to agree. (8) The defendant shall maintain his present health insurance policy for th"}
{"id":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0ce68ac5-0c0f-4ca7-84fe-f45b7f23d0cf","slug":"june-c-borgman-v-daniel-h-borgman-3326483","title":"June C. Borgman v. Daniel H. Borgman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330983/borgman-v-borgman-no-fa93-0134945-s-jul-14-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330983","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-14","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: rent mortgage shall be paid. The net proceeds shall be equally divided between the parties. (4) The stock investments and Cornerstone bank accounts shall be split equally between the parties. (5) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or other appropriate instrument, fifty (50%) percent of his retirement and annuity plans, valued as of June 30, 1995. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plans, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or"}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel Date: 1995-04-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . One-half of Stansbury and Prime $ 570 Financial Securities The defendant shall execute all documents required to transfer any interests he may own in the assets awarded to the plaintiff. CT Page 4276 (8) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), fifty (50%) percent of his Price Waterhouse IRA and retirement plans, valued as stipulated by the parties to be $33,233 for the IRA plan and $72,270 for the retirement plan. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plans, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court shall re"}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: documents required to transfer any interests he may own in the assets awarded to the plaintiff. CT Page 4276 (8) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), fifty (50%) percent of his Price Waterhouse IRA and retirement plans, valued as stipulated by the parties to be $33,233 for the IRA plan and $72,270 for the retirement plan. In the interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plans, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or state law rel"}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: g values of their assets: A. Escrow proceeds from sale of 40 Shields Road, Darien property (approx.) $505,000 B. People's Bank Accounts (approx.) $ 13,600 C. Interest in Vermont property $ 16,000 D. Stamford Yacht Club Bond $ 2,500 E. Retirement and Pension Plans (approx.) 1. Gemini 401K $ 500 2. Price Waterhouse 401K $33,233 3. Price Waterhouse retirement $72,270 $106,000 F. Coins (approx.) $ 2,700 G. Gold Stocks (approx.) $ 150 H. Stansbury and Prime Financial $ 1,140 Securities (approx.) ------------ Total $647,090 (5) From the escrow funds, the following debts shall be paid: A. 2 joint Visa b"}
{"id":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da86d94c-0944-4401-a3c3-1d97760d250d","slug":"karen-gabriel-v-james-gabriel-3334090","title":"Karen Gabriel v. James Gabriel","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338583/gabriel-v-gabriel-no-fa93-0135171-s-apr-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338583","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): w proceeds from sale of 40 Shields Road, Darien property (approx.) $505,000 B. People's Bank Accounts (approx.) $ 13,600 C. Interest in Vermont property $ 16,000 D. Stamford Yacht Club Bond $ 2,500 E. Retirement and Pension Plans (approx.) 1. Gemini 401K $ 500 2. Price Waterhouse 401K $33,233 3. Price Waterhouse retirement $72,270 $106,000 F. Coins (approx.) $ 2,700 G. Gold Stocks (approx.) $ 150 H. Stansbury and Prime Financial $ 1,140 Securities (approx.) ------------ Total $647,090 (5) From the escrow funds, the following debts shall be paid: A. 2 joint Visa bills $ 11,700 B. 2 Household cr"}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi Date: 1997-02-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: % of any gross bonus the defendant receives. Said sum shall be paid to the plaintiff within 30 days of the receipt of same by the defendant. Pension Plan 401(K) 1. The defendant shall assign a 50% interest of his 401(K) plan to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 2. The defendant shall assign a 50% interest in his Pension plan to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Tax Exemption 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the three minor children as exemptions for Income tax purposes, so long as the CT Page 1156 plaintiff is unemployed and provided the defendant is current with the"}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ion is strained, to say the least. Neither appear to understand the meaning of true and accurate affidavits and the meaning of an oath. The marital home jointly owned by the parties has a negative equity. CT Page 1153 The defendant has a 401(K) plan and a pension at his place of employment. At a pendente lite hearing, the defendant was ordered to advise the plaintiff through counsel when he received his bonus for 1996 and the amount thereof. The defendant failed to advise the plaintiff that he received a bonus of $25,000 for 1996. The defendant testified his net bonus was $16,000. He testified he used $8,000 for b"}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): his female companion is strained, to say the least. Neither appear to understand the meaning of true and accurate affidavits and the meaning of an oath. The marital home jointly owned by the parties has a negative equity. CT Page 1153 The defendant has a 401(K) plan and a pension at his place of employment. At a pendente lite hearing, the defendant was ordered to advise the plaintiff through counsel when he received his bonus for 1996 and the amount thereof. The defendant failed to advise the plaintiff that he received a bonus of $25,000 for 1996. The defendant testified his net bonus was $16,000. He testified h"}
{"id":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"81559419-53f7-4fa1-9cf2-574b94c4a1dc","slug":"karen-lombardi-v-john-lombardi-3339109","title":"Karen Lombardi v. John Lombardi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343595/lombardi-v-lombardi-no-fa96-0054059s-feb-4-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343595","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-02-04","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ross bonus the defendant receives. Said sum shall be paid to the plaintiff within 30 days of the receipt of same by the defendant. Pension Plan 401(K) 1. The defendant shall assign a 50% interest of his 401(K) plan to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 2. The defendant shall assign a 50% interest in his Pension plan to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Tax Exemption 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the three minor children as exemptions for Income tax purposes, so long as the CT Page 1156 plaintiff is unemployed and provided the defendant is current with the"}
{"id":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a095296d-9f6a-48fb-a661-cd57e711806b","slug":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108","title":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367569/murphy-v-murphy-no-31-17-40-oct-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367569","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-10-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy Date: 1994-10-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a095296d-9f6a-48fb-a661-cd57e711806b","slug":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108","title":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367569/murphy-v-murphy-no-31-17-40-oct-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367569","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-10-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a095296d-9f6a-48fb-a661-cd57e711806b","slug":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108","title":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367569/murphy-v-murphy-no-31-17-40-oct-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367569","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-10-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tal insurance for the minor child as available though his employment. All uninsured medical and dental bills shall be divided equally. These orders are entered subject to Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 46b-84c. 6. The defendant shall receive by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 22 percent of plaintiff's pension valued as of the date of this judgment. CT Page 11040 7. The plaintiff shall pay the sum of $500 within 60 days toward payment of the defendant's legal fees. 8. The husband shall name the child as irrevocable beneficiary of all existing life insurance policies for so long as he is obligated to support said child. 9. T"}
{"id":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a095296d-9f6a-48fb-a661-cd57e711806b","slug":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108","title":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367569/murphy-v-murphy-no-31-17-40-oct-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367569","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-10-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: loyment. All uninsured medical and dental bills shall be divided equally. These orders are entered subject to Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 46b-84c. 6. The defendant shall receive by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 22 percent of plaintiff's pension valued as of the date of this judgment. CT Page 11040 7. The plaintiff shall pay the sum of $500 within 60 days toward payment of the defendant's legal fees. 8. The husband shall name the child as irrevocable beneficiary of all existing life insurance policies for so long as he is obligated to support said child. 9. The husband shall be entitled to cl"}
{"id":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a095296d-9f6a-48fb-a661-cd57e711806b","slug":"karl-w-murphy-v-linda-s-murphy-3363108","title":"Karl W. Murphy v. Linda S. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367569/murphy-v-murphy-no-31-17-40-oct-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367569","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-10-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: nce for the minor child as available though his employment. All uninsured medical and dental bills shall be divided equally. These orders are entered subject to Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 46b-84c. 6. The defendant shall receive by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 22 percent of plaintiff's pension valued as of the date of this judgment. CT Page 11040 7. The plaintiff shall pay the sum of $500 within 60 days toward payment of the defendant's legal fees. 8. The husband shall name the child as irrevocable beneficiary of all existing life insurance policies for so long as he is obligated to support said child. 9. T"}
{"id":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"daa5d9d4-356c-418d-8168-10a51b15c784","slug":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820","title":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342306/colandrea-v-colandrea-no-fa-98-0410833s-feb-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342306","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea Date: 1999-02-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"daa5d9d4-356c-418d-8168-10a51b15c784","slug":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820","title":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342306/colandrea-v-colandrea-no-fa-98-0410833s-feb-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342306","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"daa5d9d4-356c-418d-8168-10a51b15c784","slug":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820","title":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342306/colandrea-v-colandrea-no-fa-98-0410833s-feb-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342306","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ff's financial affidavit are awarded to the plaintiff. 4. The Copland Company Deferred Compensation Plan shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 5. The Clinton Board of Education Defined Benefit Plan is ordered divided by QDRO or its equivalent with the defendant being assigned one half of the present vested interest in the plan, which one half amounts to $107.55 monthly. Counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for preparing the QDRO or its equivalent. 6. The defendant is assigned all of the interest in the mobile home that he owns. 7. The defendant is assigned the ownership"}
{"id":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"daa5d9d4-356c-418d-8168-10a51b15c784","slug":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820","title":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342306/colandrea-v-colandrea-no-fa-98-0410833s-feb-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342306","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: $13.00. Her gross weekly income from her Saturday part time employment with the Board of Education is $15.58. Her gross weekly income from the part time employment at the leather store is $38.75 with a deduction for federal tax of $12.00. The plaintiff has a pension plan through Copeland CT Page 1415 Companies with a present value of $3,400.00. She has a defined benefit plan through the Board of Education. She is 100% vested in that plan. Her present vested accrued monthly benefit is $215.10. The monthly amount that she would normally receive at retirement at age 65 is $469.30. She has liability consisting of Novus wit"}
{"id":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"daa5d9d4-356c-418d-8168-10a51b15c784","slug":"kathryn-a-colandrea-v-dennis-colandrea-3337820","title":"Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342306/colandrea-v-colandrea-no-fa-98-0410833s-feb-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342306","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ately $15,000.00 in 1993. The defendant inherited approximately $10,000.00 around 1986. This court has considered the provision of Section 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of Section 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision of Section 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: A. Dissolution of Marriage v. Legal Separation. 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared be single and unmarried. B. By way of Alimony 1. No alimony is awarded in favor of either party."}
{"id":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77bc4c9e-2c7c-44e3-8c13-170eb22feb06","slug":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155","title":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360621/trainor-v-trainor-no-0320022-feb-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor Date: 1998-02-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77bc4c9e-2c7c-44e3-8c13-170eb22feb06","slug":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155","title":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360621/trainor-v-trainor-no-0320022-feb-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77bc4c9e-2c7c-44e3-8c13-170eb22feb06","slug":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155","title":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360621/trainor-v-trainor-no-0320022-feb-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s irrevocable beneficiary of $50,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 7. The plaintiff is awarded a one half interest in the defendant's pension, valued as of the date of judgment. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order. The parties shall be equally responsible for the costs of the preparation of said order. 8. The defendant shall have the right to claim the minor child as an exemption for all state and federal tax purposes. The CT Page 1889 plaintiff shall execute all forms necessary to effectuate this order. 9. The property listed on schedule A affixed to the plainti"}
{"id":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77bc4c9e-2c7c-44e3-8c13-170eb22feb06","slug":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155","title":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360621/trainor-v-trainor-no-0320022-feb-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: re were difficulties between her son and the defendant. The defendant believes that the plaintiff is involved in another relationship. The court does not ascribe fault to either party. The defendant takes the position that there should be no division of his pension, substantially acquired within the marriage, nor should there be any award of alimony. Yet he substantially outearns the plaintiff and can offer no legal authority for the financial position he asserts. Indeed, while this is neither a very short nor a very long marriage, it is a marriage which has produced a child, and that event has forever altered the liv"}
{"id":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"77bc4c9e-2c7c-44e3-8c13-170eb22feb06","slug":"kathryn-m-trainor-v-james-w-trainor-3356155","title":"Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360621/trainor-v-trainor-no-0320022-feb-17-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360621","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-02-17","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ble beneficiary of $50,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 7. The plaintiff is awarded a one half interest in the defendant's pension, valued as of the date of judgment. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order. The parties shall be equally responsible for the costs of the preparation of said order. 8. The defendant shall have the right to claim the minor child as an exemption for all state and federal tax purposes. The CT Page 1889 plaintiff shall execute all forms necessary to effectuate this order. 9. The property listed on schedule A affixed to the plainti"}
{"id":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d790d7c-cba3-475c-a94a-ceb5946c9f07","slug":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465","title":"Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3328968/gruner-v-gruner-no-fa97-0158261-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3328968","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner Date: 1999-04-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d790d7c-cba3-475c-a94a-ceb5946c9f07","slug":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465","title":"Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3328968/gruner-v-gruner-no-fa97-0158261-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3328968","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2d790d7c-cba3-475c-a94a-ceb5946c9f07","slug":"kathy-gruner-v-jerry-gruner-3324465","title":"Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3328968/gruner-v-gruner-no-fa97-0158261-apr-29-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3328968","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-04-29","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l remain in effect, at a minimum, so long as the defendant is responsible for child support. The court reserves jurisdiction in the event the defendant is unable to obtain life insurance in the amount ordered. (7) The defendant shall transfer by appropriate QDRO to the plaintiff, 50% of each of his two pensions, determined as to value as of the date of April 30, 1999. The defendant's counsel shall prepare the necessary documents, at the defendant's expense. The court reserves jurisdiction to implement this order. (8 ) Each party shall retain her/his automobiles and bank accounts, if any. Each shall retain the per"}
{"id":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e96cab7-df9f-4dbc-8af0-a9395ae2262c","slug":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023","title":"Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347507/jalbert-v-jalbert-no-fa-99-68152-dec-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347507","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-12-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert Date: 2000-12-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e96cab7-df9f-4dbc-8af0-a9395ae2262c","slug":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023","title":"Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347507/jalbert-v-jalbert-no-fa-99-68152-dec-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347507","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-12-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e96cab7-df9f-4dbc-8af0-a9395ae2262c","slug":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023","title":"Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347507/jalbert-v-jalbert-no-fa-99-68152-dec-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347507","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-12-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: The Wife is awarded the IRS refund in the approximate amount of $2,292.00 and the Husband the State of Connecticut refund in the approximate amount of $590.00. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband is ordered to transfer to the Wife, by a nontaxable rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order, one half of his Smith Barney IRA represented to be approximately $31,000.00. LIABILITIES The parties shall be responsible for the debts delineated in paragraph V. Debts of their written agreement dated November 28, 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the Wife shall be solely responsible for the Spiegel MasterCard debt and any"}
{"id":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e96cab7-df9f-4dbc-8af0-a9395ae2262c","slug":"kenneth-jalbert-v-theresa-jalbert-3343023","title":"Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347507/jalbert-v-jalbert-no-fa-99-68152-dec-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347507","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-12-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: is awarded the IRS refund in the approximate amount of $2,292.00 and the Husband the State of Connecticut refund in the approximate amount of $590.00. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband is ordered to transfer to the Wife, by a nontaxable rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order, one half of his Smith Barney IRA represented to be approximately $31,000.00. LIABILITIES The parties shall be responsible for the debts delineated in paragraph V. Debts of their written agreement dated November 28, 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the Wife shall be solely responsible for the Spiegel MasterCard debt and any"}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732 Date: 1998-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: beneficiary of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars worth of life insurance. The plaintiff shall annually furnish the defendant with proof of such coverage by July first of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain o"}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: nce. The plaintiff shall annually furnish the defendant with proof of such coverage by July first of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas"}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas and Valero stocks; his claim for reimbursement of business expenses; his interest in his mother's estate; his First Union bank accounts; his stock options; his 1987 BMW and 1993 Nissan Altima automobiles; his loans receivable; and his frequent flyer miles."}
{"id":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0c7a838-067c-4266-a0da-afe7b6ee013c","slug":"kevin-o-malley-v-jeanne-o-malley-ct-page-4732-3328105","title":"Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332605/omalley-v-omalley-no-fa95-0146805-s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332605","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas and Valero stocks; his claim for reimbursement of business expenses; his interest i"}
{"id":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccd1fdb3-0d42-43a1-8f57-01de763fc12f","slug":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456","title":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339945/ahearn-v-ahearn-no-fa96-0325340s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339945","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn Date: 1998-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccd1fdb3-0d42-43a1-8f57-01de763fc12f","slug":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456","title":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339945/ahearn-v-ahearn-no-fa96-0325340s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339945","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccd1fdb3-0d42-43a1-8f57-01de763fc12f","slug":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456","title":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339945/ahearn-v-ahearn-no-fa96-0325340s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339945","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rnishings located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage, or her cohabitation (in accordance with statutory provisions), whichever shall earliest occur. 9. The defendant shall pay, as child support, $325.00 per week."}
{"id":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccd1fdb3-0d42-43a1-8f57-01de763fc12f","slug":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456","title":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339945/ahearn-v-ahearn-no-fa96-0325340s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339945","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 8 Jeep is awarded to the plaintiff. 5. The two motorcycles are awarded to the defendant. 6. Except as otherwise ordered herein, all of the furnishings located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's"}
{"id":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ccd1fdb3-0d42-43a1-8f57-01de763fc12f","slug":"laurie-m-ahearn-v-michael-y-ahearn-3335456","title":"Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339945/ahearn-v-ahearn-no-fa96-0325340s-apr-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339945","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage, or her cohabitation (in accordance with statutory provisions), whichever shall earliest occur. 9. The defendant shall pay, as child support, $325.00 per week."}
{"id":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2872bca7-ea96-4d65-9716-98c4a8dda47e","slug":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646","title":"Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365110/hawley-v-murphy-no-fa95-0050971s-aug-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365110","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-08-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy Date: 1996-08-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2872bca7-ea96-4d65-9716-98c4a8dda47e","slug":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646","title":"Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365110/hawley-v-murphy-no-fa95-0050971s-aug-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365110","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-08-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2872bca7-ea96-4d65-9716-98c4a8dda47e","slug":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646","title":"Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365110/hawley-v-murphy-no-fa95-0050971s-aug-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365110","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-08-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: intiff shall be entitled to notice from TIAA-CREF if the defendant goes into pay status. B) Until such time as the defendant elects a pay status, the minor child shall be named as a beneficiary of any pre-retirement death benefit. If required by the plan, a QDRO shall designate the child as the beneficiary. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this provision. C) In the event the defendant elects a pay status or receives monthly payments for his TIAA-CREF pension, an immediate withholding is ordered to secure the previously entered weekly order of child support and arrears. VIII. DEBTS Each party shall ass"}
{"id":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2872bca7-ea96-4d65-9716-98c4a8dda47e","slug":"leah-ann-hawley-v-james-p-murphy-3360646","title":"Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365110/hawley-v-murphy-no-fa95-0050971s-aug-2-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365110","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-08-02","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: th of the minor child; B) the child's graduation from high school; C) the child's nineteenth birthday; or D) any and all arrearage on child support and attorney's fees is paid in full and the garnishment against the defendant's interest in his TIAA-CREF pension as provided hereafter is in effect and becomes effective. 3. In the event said lien is reduced to a liquid fund, said fund shall be held by the plaintiff as trustee for the minor child, Brendan, for the support of said minor child. The plaintiff as trustee shall be entitled to withdraw from said fund at the rate of $150 per week for the support of the min"}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Leners v. Leners Citation: 302 Neb. 904. Extracted reporter citation: 302 Neb. 904. Date: 2019-04-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Leners v. Leners is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: n's proposed property division showed that the \"Railroad Retirement Board Creditable Compensation\" of unknown value should be divided by a qualified domestic relations order. The court received a \"Statement of Railroad Employee's Actual or Estimated Railroad Retirement Benefits\" dated January 19, 2017, which was furnished for use in connection with a divorce. The statement reflected an estimate of Stacy's current monthly benefit based upon employment with the rail- road through December 1, 2015, assuming that he were now retired and entitled to payment of benefits. It showed the fol- lowing monthly railroad benefit amounts: Tier"}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. 3. Divorce: Property Division: Pensions. In dissolution proceedings, the trial court has broad discretion in valuing and dividing pension rights between the parties. 4. Child Custody. While the wishes of a child are not controlling in the determination of custody, if a child is of sufficient age and has expressed an intelligent preference, the child's preference is entitled to consideration. 5. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraise"}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): d's activities and Stacy's work schedule. Stacy essentially asked for an extension of the temporary plan. Pensions Sharon is a registered nurse, and her proposed child support worksheets show her monthly income to be $3,693. Through her employer, she has a 401K account and a pension. She also has a Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems account. In Sharon's proposed property division, she included the lat- ter account and the 401K under her column at a total value of $38,301.28. Stacy's proposed property division additionally - 907 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports LENERS v."}
{"id":"leners-v-leners-4416287::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"743544e5-58bc-4f8e-95a9-d813f7bc33ea","slug":"leners-v-leners-4416287","title":"Leners v. Leners","citation":"302 Neb. 904","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4639034/leners-v-leners/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4639034","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"302 Neb. 904","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2019-04-19","citation_year":2019,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: braska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports LENERS v. LENERS Cite as 302 Neb. 904 Sharon B. Leners, appellant, v. Stacy M. Leners, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 19, 2019. No. S-18-072. 1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In a marital dissolution action, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. This standard of review applies to the trial court's determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and att"}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo. Date: 2002-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: avit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTORNEY FEES The parties shall each be solely responsible for their own attorney fees TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2002 and thereafter. In th"}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: cept as otherwise provided herein, the Husband shall be responsible for the debts on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall be responsible for the debts on her financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance wit"}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ded herein, the Husband shall be responsible for the debts on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall be responsible for the debts on her financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTO"}
{"id":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80afe4b3-9117-4ea2-8f07-a5b6d7311975","slug":"leuisa-zurlo-v-carmine-zurlo-3328324","title":"Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332824/zurlo-v-zurlo-no-fa-01-045531-sep-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332824","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-09-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: hall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTORNEY FEES The parties shall each be solely responsible for their own attorney fees TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2002 and thereafter. In th"}
{"id":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a585ed53-2f12-4ca5-87d4-4f33b9acd730","slug":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767","title":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343253/bevilacqua-v-bevilacqua-no-fa-97-0346477s-jan-20-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343253","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-20","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 1999-01-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a585ed53-2f12-4ca5-87d4-4f33b9acd730","slug":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767","title":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343253/bevilacqua-v-bevilacqua-no-fa-97-0346477s-jan-20-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343253","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-20","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a585ed53-2f12-4ca5-87d4-4f33b9acd730","slug":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767","title":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343253/bevilacqua-v-bevilacqua-no-fa-97-0346477s-jan-20-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343253","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-20","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ther party produced any documentation, such as closing statements or canceled checks, in support of their claims. The Husband also worked 14 years for the Bridgeport Board of Education prior to the marriage during which time he accumulated credits towards his pension. Throughout the marriage the Wife was employed as an office manager in a dental office. Her current gross weekly income of $562 ($29,224 per year) would appear to be her capacity. The Husband worked as a teacher and most recently as the District Suspension Officer for the Bridgeport Board of Education. His gross weekly income of $1397 ($72,635 per year)"}
{"id":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a585ed53-2f12-4ca5-87d4-4f33b9acd730","slug":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767","title":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343253/bevilacqua-v-bevilacqua-no-fa-97-0346477s-jan-20-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343253","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-20","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: for relief shall be hers with the exception of the camera which shall remain the Husband's property. The Husband shall retain his two boats and each party shall retain their respective automobiles. Pension The Husband shall assign to the Wife pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order (DRO), a 26.4% interest in his pension as of December 31, 1998 with a joint survivor annuity. Any appreciation in the pension thereafter shall belong solely to the Husband. The Wife's counsel shall have the responsibility of preparing the DRO, the cost of which, estimated to be $500, shall be equally shared by the parties. At the Wife's option, she may take"}
{"id":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a585ed53-2f12-4ca5-87d4-4f33b9acd730","slug":"linda-bevilacqua-v-albert-bevilacqua-3338767","title":"Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343253/bevilacqua-v-bevilacqua-no-fa-97-0346477s-jan-20-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343253","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-20","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: The Husband shall retain his two boats and each party shall retain their respective automobiles. Pension The Husband shall assign to the Wife pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order (DRO), a 26.4% interest in his pension as of December 31, 1998 with a joint survivor annuity. Any appreciation in the pension thereafter shall belong solely to the Husband. The Wife's counsel shall have the responsibility of preparing the DRO, the cost of which, estimated to be $500, shall be equally shared by the parties. At the Wife's option, she may take out insurance on the Husband's life to cover any losses she might incur in the event of the"}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick Date: 1998-10-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 1993 Dodge truck valued at $900.00. The Plaintiff shall own the 1989 Subaru valued at $19,000.00. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff $9,000.00 within 60 days. 6. The Defendant shall transfer to the Plaintiff from his pension $32,200.00 by QDRO, which shall be prepared by Defendant's attorney. The Plaintiff shall keep her own pension. 7. The Plaintiff shall keep the balance of her injury settlement free of any claim from the Defendant. In return, the Defendant shall keep all the guns, boat, rifles, heavy and small equipment, tools and the grandfather clock. 8. Regarding the cash values of the"}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: e with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goods and clothing valued at $6,082.00 a Town of Ledyard retirement plan valued at $24,718.00; a $5,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $2,108.00. Plaintiff settled an injury action and received $54,000.00± of which $30,000.00± went to the benefit of the parties, however, she did not account for $24,000.00± of her settlement. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has possession of some Civil War memorabil"}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Defendant's financial affidavit said boat, guns, tools and heavy and light equipment are valued at $26,500.00 The Defendant also has miscellaneous household goods; a Dime CT Page 11465 Savings Bank account; a 401k plan valued at $8,158.00; a Town of Ledyard pension valued at $99,000.00; comp time from his employment valued at $14,766.15; a $250,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goods and clothing valued at $6,082.00 a Town of Ledyar"}
{"id":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67f0529d-3836-42f9-9bab-86a457ee3460","slug":"linda-burdick-v-joseph-burdick-3329301","title":"Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333798/burdick-v-burdick-no-0541375-oct-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333798","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 21,380.00; a boat and many rifles and guns. On Defendant's financial affidavit said boat, guns, tools and heavy and light equipment are valued at $26,500.00 The Defendant also has miscellaneous household goods; a Dime CT Page 11465 Savings Bank account; a 401k plan valued at $8,158.00; a Town of Ledyard pension valued at $99,000.00; comp time from his employment valued at $14,766.15; a $250,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goo"}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman. Date: 2002-02-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nal property: Her 1998 Nissan Pathfinder, her SBLI Life Insurance Policy having a cash value of $9,185, her 401K Vanguard account in the amount of $187,440, and her two Roth IRAs totaling $7,229. (4) The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant, by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the TIAA-CREF account which had a balance on the date of dissolution $40,830. It is the court's intention that any appreciation or decline in value be accepted by the defendant. The parties are to equally share the cost of said QDRO. (5) The defendant is to retain his 1995 Nissan pickup, his Charles Schwab account in the amount of $50,750, his ACQ"}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: it, are titled in her name alone: a 1998 automobile valued at $12,000, cash value of $9,185 on a life insurance policy, a 401K plan in the amount of $187,440, two Roth IRAs in the total amount of $7,229, and a TIAA-CREF account in the amount of $40,830. Her pension at Bayer, by present valuation, will pay her approximately $700 a month when she reaches the age of 65. The defendant husband is 39 years of age and is a high school graduate. He is employed as a mail carrier for the United States Postal CT Page 1546 Service and has 15 years of service. He appears to be in good health, although, he has taken medication fo"}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): he average of her income for years 1999, 2000, and 2001 was approximately $77,600. The following assets, as shown on her financial affidavit, are titled in her name alone: a 1998 automobile valued at $12,000, cash value of $9,185 on a life insurance policy, a 401K plan in the amount of $187,440, two Roth IRAs in the total amount of $7,229, and a TIAA-CREF account in the amount of $40,830. Her pension at Bayer, by present valuation, will pay her approximately $700 a month when she reaches the age of 65. The defendant husband is 39 years of age and is a high school graduate. He is employed as a mail carrier for the"}
{"id":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6cd35474-d6c8-4892-8212-1425be6bad6b","slug":"lizbeth-friedman-v-jess-friedman-3371915","title":"Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376370/friedman-v-friedman-no-fa-01-0450825-s-feb-6-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376370","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-06","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ty: Her 1998 Nissan Pathfinder, her SBLI Life Insurance Policy having a cash value of $9,185, her 401K Vanguard account in the amount of $187,440, and her two Roth IRAs totaling $7,229. (4) The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant, by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the TIAA-CREF account which had a balance on the date of dissolution $40,830. It is the court's intention that any appreciation or decline in value be accepted by the defendant. The parties are to equally share the cost of said QDRO. (5) The defendant is to retain his 1995 Nissan pickup, his Charles Schwab account in the amount of $50,750, his ACQ"}
{"id":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0f62e7-c8be-448c-9133-43c874c9ceba","slug":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468","title":"Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2906468/lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2906468","extracted_docket_number":"20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2007-02-08","citation_year":2007,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel. Date: 2007-02-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0f62e7-c8be-448c-9133-43c874c9ceba","slug":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468","title":"Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2906468/lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2906468","extracted_docket_number":"20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2007-02-08","citation_year":2007,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4e0f62e7-c8be-448c-9133-43c874c9ceba","slug":"lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel-2906468","title":"Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel","citation":"domestic relations order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2906468/lon-clarke-ruckel-v-deborah-deniese-ruckel/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2906468","extracted_docket_number":"20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel","extracted_reporter_citation":"domestic relations order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2007-02-08","citation_year":2007,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: LARKE RUCKEL, Appellant V. DEBORAH DENIESE RUCKEL, Appellee On Appeal from the 1-A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel appealed an order denying his motion to clarify a qualified domestic relations order and ordering him to pay attorney's fees to the opposing party, Deborah Deniese Ruckel Yates. The appeal was submitted without briefs because the appellant failed to file his brief by September 20, 2006, the due date on the final extension granted for filing a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a), (d). On January 11, 2007, we notified the parties that the"}
{"id":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4d8d841-3220-46c1-88eb-ce9bb6402869","slug":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092","title":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343578/dobosz-v-dobosz-no-382634-dec-6-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343578","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-06","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz. Date: 1991-12-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4d8d841-3220-46c1-88eb-ce9bb6402869","slug":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092","title":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343578/dobosz-v-dobosz-no-382634-dec-6-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343578","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-06","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4d8d841-3220-46c1-88eb-ce9bb6402869","slug":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092","title":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343578/dobosz-v-dobosz-no-382634-dec-6-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343578","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-06","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . There are no minor children issue of their marriage, and no others have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage. 4. Neither party is receiving or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable t"}
{"id":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4d8d841-3220-46c1-88eb-ce9bb6402869","slug":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092","title":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343578/dobosz-v-dobosz-no-382634-dec-6-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343578","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-06","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: g or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable term. 6. That the plaintiff wife shall receive the sum of $12,000 (twelve thousand dollars) gross, on or before March 15, 1992, wh"}
{"id":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b4d8d841-3220-46c1-88eb-ce9bb6402869","slug":"lorraine-r-dobosz-v-paul-e-dobosz-3339092","title":"Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343578/dobosz-v-dobosz-no-382634-dec-6-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343578","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-12-06","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e no minor children issue of their marriage, and no others have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage. 4. Neither party is receiving or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable t"}
{"id":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9e0b313-cf03-4373-9838-8e96101a38ef","slug":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237","title":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350715/snide-v-snide-no-0547785-jan-5-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350715","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-05","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide Date: 2000-01-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9e0b313-cf03-4373-9838-8e96101a38ef","slug":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237","title":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350715/snide-v-snide-no-0547785-jan-5-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350715","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-05","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9e0b313-cf03-4373-9838-8e96101a38ef","slug":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237","title":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350715/snide-v-snide-no-0547785-jan-5-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350715","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-05","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: urance, her Templeton Growth Fund IRA and her Provident Mutual asset and her McDesop. Upon the plaintiff's retirement from the United States Naval Service, the defendant wife shall be entitled to 50% of the military pension, the same to be accomplished by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as may be necessary. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the two debts shown on his financial affidavit. The defendant shows no debts on her affidavit. As earlier indicated, it was represented to the Court that the Court need not concern itself with the automobiles in the respective names of the parties nor personal property including the two"}
{"id":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9e0b313-cf03-4373-9838-8e96101a38ef","slug":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237","title":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350715/snide-v-snide-no-0547785-jan-5-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350715","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-05","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: reflects modest amounts in three checking accounts, and funds in three Fidelity Destiny accounts which total $139,198.00. Service insurance with a cash value of $8,300.00. CT Page 113 If the plaintiff were to retire at this time, his gross monthly military pension would be $2,639.00 monthly, with a net of $1,900.00 monthly. The affidavit also reflects certain canceled life insurance to the amount of $8,387.00. From the defendant's financial affidavit it appears that the lady has returned to employment at McDonald's, gross weekly wage, $330.14, appropriate deductions of $58.74, net, $271.40. In addition, the defen"}
{"id":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c9e0b313-cf03-4373-9838-8e96101a38ef","slug":"lyle-snide-v-stephanie-snide-3346237","title":"Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350715/snide-v-snide-no-0547785-jan-5-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350715","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-05","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: r Templeton Growth Fund IRA and her Provident Mutual asset and her McDesop. Upon the plaintiff's retirement from the United States Naval Service, the defendant wife shall be entitled to 50% of the military pension, the same to be accomplished by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as may be necessary. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the two debts shown on his financial affidavit. The defendant shows no debts on her affidavit. As earlier indicated, it was represented to the Court that the Court need not concern itself with the automobiles in the respective names of the parties nor personal property including the two"}
{"id":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef65379c-bdff-453c-b7ae-23956932e441","slug":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687","title":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360154/simonds-v-simonds-no-fa92-04-16-01-mar-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds Date: 1994-03-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef65379c-bdff-453c-b7ae-23956932e441","slug":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687","title":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360154/simonds-v-simonds-no-fa92-04-16-01-mar-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef65379c-bdff-453c-b7ae-23956932e441","slug":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687","title":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360154/simonds-v-simonds-no-fa92-04-16-01-mar-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e. This property has present net equity of $12,000. 2. Pension Plans. 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to her Connecticut State Teachers Retirement Fund which has a net value after taxes of CT Page 3198 $14,276. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a QDRO for 50% of the present day value of the defendants TIAA pension plan. The defendant has listed the value as $50,000. This will provide the plaintiff with approximately $22. per week or approximately $95. a month income. C. Alimony. 1. The issue of alimony has been a difficult one. The Court recognizes that the defendant is the primary care taker for the"}
{"id":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef65379c-bdff-453c-b7ae-23956932e441","slug":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687","title":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360154/simonds-v-simonds-no-fa92-04-16-01-mar-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f the children. The parties have filed a joint Bankruptcy which has disposed of most of their liabilities. The parties obtained a modification of the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Court to proceed with this dissolution. The marital home and the parties pension plans have been abandoned by the Trustee. The only assets in this dissolution are the parties respective Pension Plans and the marital home. Both parties agreed that the marital home has a fair market value of $135,000. subject to a mortgage of $123,000 with an equity of $12,000. The wife has a pension of approximately $18,784 on which she could withdraw"}
{"id":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ef65379c-bdff-453c-b7ae-23956932e441","slug":"lynne-simonds-v-michael-simonds-3355687","title":"Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360154/simonds-v-simonds-no-fa92-04-16-01-mar-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360154","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ical and dental expenses for the minor child as long as the plaintiff is unemployed. When the plaintiff obtains full time employment all uninsured and/or unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the minor child be equally divided between the parties. B. Property Division The following orders are entered with respect to a division of property of the parties. 1. Real Estate. The plaintiff shall Quit Claim all her right, title and interest in the marital home located at 2 Park Circle, Milford Connecticut, to the defendant within 2 weeks of date. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all liability w"}
{"id":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f537609-846c-4dc5-ba57-9f9360e65639","slug":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318","title":"MacOmber v. MacOmber","citation":"814 A.2d 456","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2258318/macomber-v-macomber/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2258318","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"814 A.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-01-07","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"MacOmber v. MacOmber Citation: 814 A.2d 456. Extracted reporter citation: 814 A.2d 456. Date: 2003-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: MacOmber v. MacOmber is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f537609-846c-4dc5-ba57-9f9360e65639","slug":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318","title":"MacOmber v. MacOmber","citation":"814 A.2d 456","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2258318/macomber-v-macomber/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2258318","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"814 A.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-01-07","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3f537609-846c-4dc5-ba57-9f9360e65639","slug":"macomber-v-macomber-2258318","title":"MacOmber v. MacOmber","citation":"814 A.2d 456","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2258318/macomber-v-macomber/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2258318","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"814 A.2d 456","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2003-01-07","citation_year":2003,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"opening text: 814 A.2d 456 (2003) 2003 ME 1 Steven MACOMBER v. Roxanne MACOMBER. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: May 9, 2002. Decided: January 7, 2003. Donald J. Gasink (orally), Augusta, for plaintiff. David S. Abramson (orally), Givertz, Lunt, Hambley, Schefee & Abramson, P.A., Portland, for defendant. Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J. and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ. DANA, J. [¶ 1] Roxanne Macomber appeals from a divorce judgment entered in the District Court (Ellsworth, Staples, J. ), contending that the court erred in determining Steven Macomber's income and abused its discretion in its award of general and transitional support. She asserts that the cour"}
{"id":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e23aa3d-c646-4ae8-8cc4-97c0e1f63c9a","slug":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156","title":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350634/roche-v-diaz-no-fa000063246s-jul-20-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350634","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-07-20","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz. Date: 2001-07-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e23aa3d-c646-4ae8-8cc4-97c0e1f63c9a","slug":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156","title":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350634/roche-v-diaz-no-fa000063246s-jul-20-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350634","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-07-20","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e23aa3d-c646-4ae8-8cc4-97c0e1f63c9a","slug":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156","title":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350634/roche-v-diaz-no-fa000063246s-jul-20-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350634","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-07-20","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ount of $500 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e23aa3d-c646-4ae8-8cc4-97c0e1f63c9a","slug":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156","title":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350634/roche-v-diaz-no-fa000063246s-jul-20-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350634","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-07-20","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: fees on behalf of the plaintiff in the amount of $500 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0e23aa3d-c646-4ae8-8cc4-97c0e1f63c9a","slug":"maria-d-roche-v-jose-ramon-diaz-3346156","title":"Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3350634/roche-v-diaz-no-fa000063246s-jul-20-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3350634","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-07-20","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 00 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J."}
{"id":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e8e1b7-9393-49c8-9f48-64c993ebf979","slug":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453","title":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344938/trombetta-v-trombetta-no-fa00-037-74-49-feb-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344938","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr. Date: 2002-02-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e8e1b7-9393-49c8-9f48-64c993ebf979","slug":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453","title":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344938/trombetta-v-trombetta-no-fa00-037-74-49-feb-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344938","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e8e1b7-9393-49c8-9f48-64c993ebf979","slug":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453","title":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344938/trombetta-v-trombetta-no-fa00-037-74-49-feb-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344938","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: a result of the parties joint ownership of the property. 10. Pension/401(k) — the amount of the pensions CT Page 2070 and 401(k) accounts of the parties shall be combined and divided into equal shares, one share for each party, with the execution of a QDRO, if required. The parties shall equally bear the cost for preparation of the QDRO. 11. The wife shall be responsible for the payment of the Fleet and MBNA charge card accounts. The husband shall be responsible for the payment of the Hudson Bank charge card account. The plaintiff shall be responsible for payment of $1,000 toward the outstanding balance on"}
{"id":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e8e1b7-9393-49c8-9f48-64c993ebf979","slug":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453","title":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344938/trombetta-v-trombetta-no-fa00-037-74-49-feb-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344938","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: on. Both the plaintiff and defendant attended high school, the defendant in Italy and the plaintiff in the United States. Prior to the defendant's employment with Westfield, he had worked for Wiretek for approximately 10 years. This work qualified him for pension benefits, however the company's financial difficulties make doubtful whether any such are or will be available. In 1984, the parties purchased a home at 214 Burnsford Avenue, in Bridgeport. Prior to moving to the United States, the defendant had worked in Canada. The down payment for the house came principally from the defendant's earnings in Canada and f"}
{"id":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37e8e1b7-9393-49c8-9f48-64c993ebf979","slug":"maria-m-trombetta-v-franco-n-trombetta-sr-3340453","title":"Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344938/trombetta-v-trombetta-no-fa00-037-74-49-feb-20-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344938","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-02-20","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): r become due from or after the time of closing and, except as otherwise provided herein, she shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify him thereon from any claims that might arise as a result of the parties joint ownership of the property. 10. Pension/401(k) — the amount of the pensions CT Page 2070 and 401(k) accounts of the parties shall be combined and divided into equal shares, one share for each party, with the execution of a QDRO, if required. The parties shall equally bear the cost for preparation of the QDRO. 11. The wife shall be responsible for the payment of the Fleet and MBNA charge card acc"}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante Date: 2000-01-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: indicated: — IRA Mutual Fund $ 77,192 — 403k $ 1,478 — Merrill Lynch IRA (EX2) $ 11,185 — Checking/Savings Accounts $ 1,000 CT Page 1070 — Clinton, Conn. Real Estate $146,500 _________ TOTAL: $ 237,355 Subject to the QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532"}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s that the defendant/father acquired either by earning investment or inheritance have been similarly used. The parties have each agreed of record and the court hereby approves and orders that each shall retain as their own separate property their retirement pension accounts. It is to be noted that the defendant retired in 1994 and is presently claims to use his pension as his principal source of sustenance. Each party shall pay the debts as indicated on their separate financial affidavits and hold the other party harmless in connection therewith. The interest of the defendant in the Vermont property which has a valu"}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532,914 Thus, the court concludes that the total marital estate amounts to $1,770,269, one-half of which amounts to $885,134.50. The court finds that taking into account all of the statutory factors including the health of the parties and their earning capacity and their con"}
{"id":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"530ef3d2-2e2d-4e55-8332-91f55e83d82e","slug":"maria-passante-v-jeffrey-passante-3355232","title":"Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359700/passante-v-passante-no-fa99-89096-jan-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359700","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: 8212; IRA Mutual Fund $ 77,192 — 403k $ 1,478 — Merrill Lynch IRA (EX2) $ 11,185 — Checking/Savings Accounts $ 1,000 CT Page 1070 — Clinton, Conn. Real Estate $146,500 _________ TOTAL: $ 237,355 Subject to the QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532,914 Thus, the court concludes tha"}
{"id":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"625605ea-5790-4c83-bcb6-812d0fb3346e","slug":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615","title":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349095/pollastro-v-pollastro-no-fa92-03-88-22s-nov-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349095","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro Date: 1993-11-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"625605ea-5790-4c83-bcb6-812d0fb3346e","slug":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615","title":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349095/pollastro-v-pollastro-no-fa92-03-88-22s-nov-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349095","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"625605ea-5790-4c83-bcb6-812d0fb3346e","slug":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615","title":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349095/pollastro-v-pollastro-no-fa92-03-88-22s-nov-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349095","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: these assets. 2. The defendant shall transfer the sum of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Said order remains in full force and effect. D. Arre"}
{"id":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"625605ea-5790-4c83-bcb6-812d0fb3346e","slug":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615","title":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349095/pollastro-v-pollastro-no-fa92-03-88-22s-nov-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349095","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: securities of the parties. The parties shall cooperate in connection with the division of these assets. 2. The defendant shall transfer the sum of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divi"}
{"id":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"625605ea-5790-4c83-bcb6-812d0fb3346e","slug":"maria-pollastro-v-sabatino-pollastro-3344615","title":"Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349095/pollastro-v-pollastro-no-fa92-03-88-22s-nov-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349095","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Said order remains in full force and effect. D. Arrearage The court finds an arrearage on the pendente lite order as"}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore Date: 1993-11-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates of the family tapes; one lawn mower;"}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: for alimony. G. Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates"}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: as irrevocable beneficiary thereon for so long as the defendant has an obligation for alimony. G. Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in disp"}
{"id":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"33781db2-5d52-400e-9c31-400cb98f7ef0","slug":"marian-claire-moore-v-joseph-moore-3370045","title":"Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374503/moore-v-moore-no-fa93-04-34-26s-nov-29-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374503","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-29","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates of the family tapes; one lawn mower;"}
{"id":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a5e086c-5074-4f21-8179-11190e5ed4b0","slug":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222","title":"Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352699/besson-v-besson-no-fa96-0151407-s-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson Date: 1997-10-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a5e086c-5074-4f21-8179-11190e5ed4b0","slug":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222","title":"Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352699/besson-v-besson-no-fa96-0151407-s-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a5e086c-5074-4f21-8179-11190e5ed4b0","slug":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222","title":"Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352699/besson-v-besson-no-fa96-0151407-s-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 69441 (Defendant's account); h. Fleet Bank — Florida account #000-178-5523830; i. His EZ Pull Patent, but the parties shall share equally any net proceeds received because of the patent's use. (9) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order a one-half (1/2) interest in the present value of his AMF Annuity. The court reserves jurisdiction to effectuate the implementation of this order. (10) The defendant's Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company policy shall be cashed in and the proceeds disbursed as follows: A. The sum of $19,300 to the defendant for payment of taxes due on liquidation"}
{"id":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a5e086c-5074-4f21-8179-11190e5ed4b0","slug":"marie-besson-v-ronald-besson-3348222","title":"Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352699/besson-v-besson-no-fa96-0151407-s-oct-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352699","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: endant's account); h. Fleet Bank — Florida account #000-178-5523830; i. His EZ Pull Patent, but the parties shall share equally any net proceeds received because of the patent's use. (9) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order a one-half (1/2) interest in the present value of his AMF Annuity. The court reserves jurisdiction to effectuate the implementation of this order. (10) The defendant's Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company policy shall be cashed in and the proceeds disbursed as follows: A. The sum of $19,300 to the defendant for payment of taxes due on liquidation"}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci Date: 1996-02-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: r federal aid. 6. The plaintiff's maiden name of Marie Marini is hereby CT Page 1323-V restored. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as lump sum alimony not dischargeable in bankruptcy the sum of $16,900 either in cash or by a conveyance through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) of so much of his 401K plan as equals that amount. The plaintiff's counsel shall draw an appropriate order for this purpose. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff all his right, title and interest in the marital home at 25 Fairty Drive, New Canaan, Connecticut. 9. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all her right, title and i"}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: than he did during the marriage. (See plaintiff's exhibits II and JJ and defendant's exhibit 34.) At the present time, the defendant is still earning $50,000 a year, he still has a vested pension valued at $242,264, which provides him with a monthly normal retirement benefit payable at age 65 of $624.08. He also has two pieces of property in New York state, in one his interest is valued at $95,000 and the other his interest is $60,000. He is perfectly capable of taking care of his expenses, his attorney's fees and liabilities. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has lost her job probably in part because of her arrest brought ab"}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: f had a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am, which the defendant later turned in on the purchase of a 1990 Voyager in his name. At the time of the marriage, the defendant also had a 401K account to which he contributed ten percent of his weekly income and he had a vested pension with the company. The plaintiff also had a 401K plan. The plaintiff's liabilities at the time of the marriage consisted primarily of the mortgages on the house which left her very little, if any, equity in it. She had bought it for $281,000 in October of 1990 with a down payment of $28,100 (see exhibit plaintiff's exhibit A). The plaintiff had been in ban"}
{"id":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"93aa0407-ccdf-4a35-8e48-f2791758546d","slug":"marie-marini-carminucci-v-robert-carminucci-3325478","title":"Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3329980/carminucci-v-carminucci-no-fa94-013-87-67-s-feb-14-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3329980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-02-14","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): 980 Chevrolet and a Cadillac which he later sold for a $1,000. CT Page 1323-P The plaintiff had a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am, which the defendant later turned in on the purchase of a 1990 Voyager in his name. At the time of the marriage, the defendant also had a 401K account to which he contributed ten percent of his weekly income and he had a vested pension with the company. The plaintiff also had a 401K plan. The plaintiff's liabilities at the time of the marriage consisted primarily of the mortgages on the house which left her very little, if any, equity in it. She had bought it for $281,000 in October of 1990 with"}
{"id":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"402a7977-2472-4b5c-b6c0-f6218dac5cf9","slug":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482","title":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348962/payne-v-payne-no-26-54-26-oct-4-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348962","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-04","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne. Date: 1991-10-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"402a7977-2472-4b5c-b6c0-f6218dac5cf9","slug":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482","title":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348962/payne-v-payne-no-26-54-26-oct-4-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348962","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-04","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"402a7977-2472-4b5c-b6c0-f6218dac5cf9","slug":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482","title":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348962/payne-v-payne-no-26-54-26-oct-4-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348962","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-04","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: t, and the wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either pa"}
{"id":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"402a7977-2472-4b5c-b6c0-f6218dac5cf9","slug":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482","title":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348962/payne-v-payne-no-26-54-26-oct-4-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348962","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-04","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either party or the wife's remarriage. The alimon"}
{"id":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"402a7977-2472-4b5c-b6c0-f6218dac5cf9","slug":"marilyn-payne-v-donald-j-payne-3344482","title":"Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348962/payne-v-payne-no-26-54-26-oct-4-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348962","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-10-04","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either pa"}
{"id":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7ed415-040f-4f58-a28b-1b5b18c3a230","slug":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924","title":"Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip","citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10318336/mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10318336","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-01-22","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip Citation: 2025 Ark. App. 29. Extracted reporter citation: 2025 Ark. App. 29. Date: 2025-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7ed415-040f-4f58-a28b-1b5b18c3a230","slug":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924","title":"Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip","citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10318336/mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10318336","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-01-22","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9d7ed415-040f-4f58-a28b-1b5b18c3a230","slug":"mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip-10784924","title":"Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip","citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10318336/mark-miles-waldrip-v-angela-eason-waldrip/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10318336","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 Ark. App. 29","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-01-22","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eral factors, including whether the benefit \"cannot be diminished by the [employer] and is not dependent upon . . . continued employment.\" Id. at 3, 514 S.W.3d at 457 (quoting Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 264, 663 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1984)). Mark likens unvested retirement benefits, which are not marital property, to the priority points because he claims the points can be \"unilaterally terminated by the Foundation,\" they \"create no more than a mere expectancy in the donor,\" and they \"are not property subject to division.\" This argument also lacks merit. Again, Veteto testified that donors maintain the right to purchase their ti"}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman Date: 1999-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: said amount shall carry interest in the unpaid balance of 7% per year until paid. Said sum shall be secured by a mortgage on the marital residence with the usual covenants, etc. 3. Plaintiff shall be entitled to 16% of defendant's defined pension by way of QDRO order which the defendant or his attorney CT Page 9781 shall prepare. 4. The plaintiff shall keep her 1992 Ford, her insurance and her Better Val-U 401K plan, her auto insurance claim free of any claim by the defendant. 5. The defendant shall keep the 1985 Ford Mustang, the 1991 Mazda, his Charter Oak Federal Credit Union and his savings bonds free of a"}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: in 1990 and a present market value of $113,000. (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) According to her financial affidavit, plaintiff has a 401K from Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint checking account used to pay bills of the marriage. Plaintiffs income was used to purchase food, etc. She also tried, unsuccessfully,"}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): property is $116,000.00. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A). According to defendant's expert the property had a market of value of $119,000 in 1990 and a present market value of $113,000. (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) According to her financial affidavit, plaintiff has a 401K from Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint"}
{"id":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c4c821b2-73d5-4b1c-9fc8-f89498db3ce1","slug":"mary-ann-chapman-v-peter-j-chapman-3354557","title":"Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359025/chapman-v-chapman-no-0115431-jul-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359025","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-07-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: rom Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint checking account used to pay bills of the marriage. Plaintiffs income was used to purchase food, etc. She also tried, unsuccessfully, to operate a business known as Primerica Financial Services. As indicated above, the Court finds that the parties were equally at fault for t"}
{"id":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75066ddd-a138-4d6e-9517-01cfb7a623a2","slug":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239","title":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364704/obrien-v-obrien-no-75159-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364704","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien Date: 1996-12-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75066ddd-a138-4d6e-9517-01cfb7a623a2","slug":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239","title":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364704/obrien-v-obrien-no-75159-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364704","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75066ddd-a138-4d6e-9517-01cfb7a623a2","slug":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239","title":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364704/obrien-v-obrien-no-75159-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364704","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e UTC pension. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this transfer. 6. The defendant is awarded his savings plan and credit union accounts. 7. The plaintiff shall retain her Shawmut accounts, Aetna stocks, credit union account, certificates of deposit and her interest in real estate located in Pittsburgh 8. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant by way of property settlement $20,000.00 n"}
{"id":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75066ddd-a138-4d6e-9517-01cfb7a623a2","slug":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239","title":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364704/obrien-v-obrien-no-75159-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364704","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e property and deliver it to the plaintiff within two weeks. The plaintiff shall be responsible for and shall hold the defendant harmless on the first and second mortgages and on all other costs associated with the home 2. The plaintiff is awarded the AETNA pension. 3. The plaintiff is awarded the Veteran's Administration pension. 4. The defendant is awarded the UTC pension. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter"}
{"id":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"75066ddd-a138-4d6e-9517-01cfb7a623a2","slug":"mary-ann-o-brien-v-terrence-j-o-brien-3360239","title":"Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364704/obrien-v-obrien-no-75159-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364704","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this transfer. 6. The defendant is awarded his savings plan and credit union accounts. 7. The plaintiff shall retain her Shawmut accounts, Aetna stocks, credit union account, certificates of deposit and her interest in real estate located in Pittsburgh 8. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant by way of property settlement $20,000.00 n"}
{"id":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a67964fc-3cbd-4add-876e-ab44dec72565","slug":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299","title":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360765/bocialetti-v-bocialetti-no-fa93-04-19-46s-jan-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360765","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti Date: 1994-01-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a67964fc-3cbd-4add-876e-ab44dec72565","slug":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299","title":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360765/bocialetti-v-bocialetti-no-fa93-04-19-46s-jan-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360765","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a67964fc-3cbd-4add-876e-ab44dec72565","slug":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299","title":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360765/bocialetti-v-bocialetti-no-fa93-04-19-46s-jan-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360765","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the preparation of the QDRO. G. Alimony 1. Commencing February 1, 1994 the defendant shall pay to"}
{"id":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a67964fc-3cbd-4add-876e-ab44dec72565","slug":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299","title":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360765/bocialetti-v-bocialetti-no-fa93-04-19-46s-jan-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360765","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: efendant shall reimburse the plaintiff from his net proceeds from the sale of the marital home. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising"}
{"id":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a67964fc-3cbd-4add-876e-ab44dec72565","slug":"mary-bocialetti-v-frank-bocialetti-3356299","title":"Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360765/bocialetti-v-bocialetti-no-fa93-04-19-46s-jan-31-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360765","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-31","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ale of the marital home. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the preparation of the QDRO. G. Alimony 1. Commencing Febru"}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom. Date: 2001-08-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ty Division 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall sha"}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall share equally the fees incurred to prepar"}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: n 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall sha"}
{"id":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0cb51a75-1534-4de1-8aba-592c21134598","slug":"mary-hickenbottom-v-joseph-hickenbottom-3367696","title":"Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3372156/hickenbottom-v-hickenbottom-no-fa00-0178810s-aug-1-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3372156","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-01","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: hall continue until the death of the plaintiff, her remarriage or her cohabitation as provided in General Statutes Section 46b-86 (b), whichever event first occurs. The defendant shall pay the pendente lite alimony award for the month of August, 2001. II. Property Division 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $2"}
{"id":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f96902dc-a8af-4a79-9a52-4bdf78b1587a","slug":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584","title":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352061/kaiser-v-kaiser-no-fa86-0226902-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352061","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser Date: 1996-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f96902dc-a8af-4a79-9a52-4bdf78b1587a","slug":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584","title":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352061/kaiser-v-kaiser-no-fa86-0226902-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352061","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f96902dc-a8af-4a79-9a52-4bdf78b1587a","slug":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584","title":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352061/kaiser-v-kaiser-no-fa86-0226902-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352061","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: laintiff became employed shortly after the dissolution and has been steadily employed since then. She earns $552.30 weekly gross and net of $380.63. In addition to this earned income, she receives a pension of $250 from Southern Connecticut Gas derived from a Qualified Domestic Relations order granted by the court when the marriage was dissolved. If the $50 weekly alimony is factored into the income, her weekly net is about $625.19. Her total weekly expenses are $270.79. Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows assets of about $70,000 including a one-half interest in a home. Plaintiff is social security eligible both by virtue of her employment and"}
{"id":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f96902dc-a8af-4a79-9a52-4bdf78b1587a","slug":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584","title":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352061/kaiser-v-kaiser-no-fa86-0226902-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352061","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: dy of seven children, three of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution. The defendant retired as of January 1, 1996 at age 64. His financial affidavit indicates that he receives a social security benefit of $265 weekly, plus a Southern Connecticut Gas pension of $269.25 weekly. Against a total weekly income of $491.62 per week, he has listed expenses of $448.82. Defendant has remarried. His present wife is unemployed. Factoring in the $50 per week alimony gives him a small shortfall. Defendant has significant assets, a mortgage-free home valued at $160,000 and other assets totalling $265,000. These assets at pre"}
{"id":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f96902dc-a8af-4a79-9a52-4bdf78b1587a","slug":"mary-r-kaiser-v-john-kaiser-3347584","title":"Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3352061/kaiser-v-kaiser-no-fa86-0226902-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3352061","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ecame employed shortly after the dissolution and has been steadily employed since then. She earns $552.30 weekly gross and net of $380.63. In addition to this earned income, she receives a pension of $250 from Southern Connecticut Gas derived from a Qualified Domestic Relations order granted by the court when the marriage was dissolved. If the $50 weekly alimony is factored into the income, her weekly net is about $625.19. Her total weekly expenses are $270.79. Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows assets of about $70,000 including a one-half interest in a home. Plaintiff is social security eligible both by virtue of her employment and"}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox Date: 1998-11-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: y and hold the plaintiff harmless in connection therewith. Concurrent with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay"}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: court concludes from this and other evidence that the defendants actions are the substantial cause of the breakdown of the marriage. The plaintiff has returned to gainful employment as indicated on her financial affidavit, but over the years has acquired no pension plan or other retirement asset as a consequence of her being at home to care for the children. The earning capacity of the defendant remains superior to that of the plaintiff and it is anticipated that this will remain the situation in the years to come. All the right, title and interest into the residential premises of the parties in Deep River, Connecti"}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): current with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $100."}
{"id":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"98360620-ad4e-4fc1-8389-1153f2799d65","slug":"maryann-fox-v-larry-craig-fox-3341394","title":"Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345879/fox-v-fox-no-fa98-0084911-s-nov-3-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345879","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-11-03","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the plaintiff harmless in connection therewith. Concurrent with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay"}
{"id":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7395b665-1075-4e9a-bccd-31cd32fd1210","slug":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415","title":"Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358883/king-v-king-no-31-66-72-jun-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358883","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-06-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr. Date: 1995-06-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7395b665-1075-4e9a-bccd-31cd32fd1210","slug":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415","title":"Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358883/king-v-king-no-31-66-72-jun-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358883","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-06-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7395b665-1075-4e9a-bccd-31cd32fd1210","slug":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415","title":"Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358883/king-v-king-no-31-66-72-jun-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358883","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-06-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: with all necessary documents to enable her to apply for COBRA benefits at her own expense. 3. It is the intention of the court that the parties' IRA's CT Page 6818 be equalized, and the court therefore orders the husband to transfer to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the sum of $19,000. It is anticipated by the court that this is to be a tax free transfer. 4. Each of the parties, except as otherwise ordered by the court, shall pay his or her own liabilities. The husband is specifically ordered to pay in full whatever real estate taxes are due the States of Connecticut and New York relative to the Sherman/New York pro"}
{"id":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7395b665-1075-4e9a-bccd-31cd32fd1210","slug":"maryann-king-v-william-l-king-jr-3354415","title":"Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358883/king-v-king-no-31-66-72-jun-5-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358883","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-06-05","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ecessary documents to enable her to apply for COBRA benefits at her own expense. 3. It is the intention of the court that the parties' IRA's CT Page 6818 be equalized, and the court therefore orders the husband to transfer to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the sum of $19,000. It is anticipated by the court that this is to be a tax free transfer. 4. Each of the parties, except as otherwise ordered by the court, shall pay his or her own liabilities. The husband is specifically ordered to pay in full whatever real estate taxes are due the States of Connecticut and New York relative to the Sherman/New York pro"}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss Date: 1998-10-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: gure obtained by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and"}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: laintiff shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the 1990 Caravan motor vehicle. The Defendant shall retain all right title and interest in and to the 1985 Dodge Ram and the 1985 Reliant motor vehicle. Defendant may retain all of his tools. Pension Benefits CT Page 11399 The Plaintiff shall be entitled to a portion of the Defendant's monthly retirement payment earned through his employment at Electric Boat as follows: the Plaintiff's portion shall be one-half of the figure obtained by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number"}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): fits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and the Defendant shall be responsible for the debts shown on his affidavit. The"}
{"id":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e21f03bb-6598-4dea-96a4-5c790369f8ab","slug":"maureen-j-khan-lacoss-v-david-b-lacoss-3329771","title":"Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334267/khan-lacoss-v-lacoss-no-0541915-oct-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334267","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ned by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and"}
{"id":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06671d28-a2dc-4add-86d6-db4c6f50825b","slug":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418","title":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336913/mormile-v-mormile-no-fa99-033-48-24-s-aug-25-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336913","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-25","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 2000-08-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06671d28-a2dc-4add-86d6-db4c6f50825b","slug":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418","title":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336913/mormile-v-mormile-no-fa99-033-48-24-s-aug-25-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336913","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-25","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06671d28-a2dc-4add-86d6-db4c6f50825b","slug":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418","title":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336913/mormile-v-mormile-no-fa99-033-48-24-s-aug-25-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336913","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-25","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tely $8000 gambling in 1999. His gambling has continued throughout the years he has been married to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have had to make sacrifices due to his gambling. The defendant presently receives $669.56 weekly from his pension benefits. He has a deduction for withholding tax of $87.46 and health insurance for 40 cents. He has liabilities consisting of Capital One with a balance due of $2153, City Bank with a balance due of $10,811.20, and Peoples Bank with a balance due of $2306.38. He owns a 1979 Cadillac with a value of $600, and furniture and clothing with a value of $1000."}
{"id":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06671d28-a2dc-4add-86d6-db4c6f50825b","slug":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418","title":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336913/mormile-v-mormile-no-fa99-033-48-24-s-aug-25-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336913","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-25","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sold, the defendant is first to receive $1800 to reimburse him for the cost of tests that he had done on the property. All remaining sums from the sale of the property are to be divided equally between the parties. 10. The court awards to the plaintiff, by Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of the gross amounts that the defendant is entitled to receive from his pension plan through the New York City Employees' Retirement System. Until such time as the Domestic Relations Order is paying to the plaintiff the one-half amount ordered, the defendant is to pay such one-half directly to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is responsible for prep"}
{"id":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"06671d28-a2dc-4add-86d6-db4c6f50825b","slug":"maureen-mormile-v-vincent-mormile-3332418","title":"Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3336913/mormile-v-mormile-no-fa99-033-48-24-s-aug-25-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3336913","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-25","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: The $10,600 that he has in the Washington Mutual account is from that loan. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the CT Page 9819 issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: ORDERS A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved, and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. No periodic or lump sum alimony is awarded in f"}
{"id":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"488e1f1b-777a-4ada-9322-d2748a5c82cf","slug":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782","title":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361248/koskelowski-v-koskelowski-no-fa97-0143222s-dec-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361248","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski Date: 1999-12-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"488e1f1b-777a-4ada-9322-d2748a5c82cf","slug":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782","title":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361248/koskelowski-v-koskelowski-no-fa97-0143222s-dec-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361248","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"488e1f1b-777a-4ada-9322-d2748a5c82cf","slug":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782","title":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361248/koskelowski-v-koskelowski-no-fa97-0143222s-dec-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361248","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h the children. Each shall notify the other of the weeks they prefer by May 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage"}
{"id":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"488e1f1b-777a-4ada-9322-d2748a5c82cf","slug":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782","title":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361248/koskelowski-v-koskelowski-no-fa97-0143222s-dec-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361248","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: y 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and any and all expe"}
{"id":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"488e1f1b-777a-4ada-9322-d2748a5c82cf","slug":"melissa-koskelowski-v-john-koskelowski-3356782","title":"Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3361248/koskelowski-v-koskelowski-no-fa97-0143222s-dec-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3361248","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dren. Each shall notify the other of the weeks they prefer by May 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage"}
{"id":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afdf2da-7be2-4faa-9c3d-e34859bd57cf","slug":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819","title":"Mertz v. Mertz","citation":"2015 ND 13","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2770819/mertz-v-mertz/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2770819","extracted_docket_number":"20140072","extracted_reporter_citation":"2015 ND 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-01-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mertz v. Mertz Citation: 2015 ND 13. Extracted reporter citation: 2015 ND 13. Docket: 20140072. Date: 2015-01-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Mertz v. Mertz is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afdf2da-7be2-4faa-9c3d-e34859bd57cf","slug":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819","title":"Mertz v. Mertz","citation":"2015 ND 13","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2770819/mertz-v-mertz/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2770819","extracted_docket_number":"20140072","extracted_reporter_citation":"2015 ND 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-01-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afdf2da-7be2-4faa-9c3d-e34859bd57cf","slug":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819","title":"Mertz v. Mertz","citation":"2015 ND 13","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2770819/mertz-v-mertz/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2770819","extracted_docket_number":"20140072","extracted_reporter_citation":"2015 ND 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-01-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t's valuation of $165,000 is within the range of the evidence presented. The district court's valuation of the marital estate is not clearly erroneous. [¶21] Mervyn Mertz argues the district court erred in its distribution of his Iron Worker's Annuity. \"Retirement benefits are marital property that must be included in the marital estate and are subject to equitable distribution.\" Lorenz , 2007 ND 49, ¶ 19, 729 N.W.2d 692. During closing arguments, the district court specifically asked Mervyn Mertz's attorney how to distribute the annuity. Mervyn Mertz's counsel responded: \"The date of the marriage, Your Honor, versus"}
{"id":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"8afdf2da-7be2-4faa-9c3d-e34859bd57cf","slug":"mertz-v-mertz-2770819","title":"Mertz v. Mertz","citation":"2015 ND 13","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2770819/mertz-v-mertz/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"2770819","extracted_docket_number":"20140072","extracted_reporter_citation":"2015 ND 13","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-01-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: oceedings. V [¶14] Mervyn Mertz argues the district court's division of marital property and debts is clearly erroneous. He argues the district court failed to assign reasonable values to the property and debts of the parties, resulting in a grossly inequitable distribution in Darlene Mertz's favor. Darlene Mertz argues the distribution was equitable. Section 14-05-24(1), N.D.C.C., requires the court to make \"an equitable distribution of the property and debts of the parties.\" \"The ultimate objective is to make an equitable division of the property. There are no set rules for the distribution of the martial estate and what"}
{"id":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5bdfb0c-3d9f-42a9-ac0b-aa2280dca981","slug":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589","title":"Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340078/dagostino-v-wise-no-fa00-0159283s-jun-4-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340078","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-04","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise. Date: 2001-06-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5bdfb0c-3d9f-42a9-ac0b-aa2280dca981","slug":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589","title":"Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340078/dagostino-v-wise-no-fa00-0159283s-jun-4-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340078","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-04","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5bdfb0c-3d9f-42a9-ac0b-aa2280dca981","slug":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589","title":"Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340078/dagostino-v-wise-no-fa00-0159283s-jun-4-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340078","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-04","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: bank accounts shown on his financial affidavit. 12. The defendant has a pension plan from her prior employment at Centerbank. That pension plan is ordered divided equally between the parties with counsel for the plaintiff being responsible for preparing the QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. 13. Paragraph 4 of the stipulation dated April 24, 2001, provides that each shall retain sole title to their respective motor vehicles as shown on their financial affidavit and paragraph 5 of the stipulation provides that the defendant shall retain her Ame"}
{"id":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c5bdfb0c-3d9f-42a9-ac0b-aa2280dca981","slug":"michael-d-agostino-v-jan-wise-3335589","title":"Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340078/dagostino-v-wise-no-fa00-0159283s-jun-4-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340078","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-06-04","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: s loan receivable from Mark Forino are all awarded to the plaintiff. 11. The plaintiff's interest in his American Express Trust Company IRA is awarded to the plaintiff, as well as all bank accounts shown on his financial affidavit. 12. The defendant has a pension plan from her prior employment at Centerbank. That pension plan is ordered divided equally between the parties with counsel for the plaintiff being responsible for preparing the QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. 13. Paragraph 4 of the stipulation dated April 24, 2001, provides that ea"}
{"id":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"938cbd2f-7ba4-4abc-96da-499a9c603704","slug":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140","title":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357609/gehrt-v-gehrt-no-74801-dec-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357609","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt Date: 1995-12-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"938cbd2f-7ba4-4abc-96da-499a9c603704","slug":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140","title":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357609/gehrt-v-gehrt-no-74801-dec-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357609","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"938cbd2f-7ba4-4abc-96da-499a9c603704","slug":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140","title":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357609/gehrt-v-gehrt-no-74801-dec-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357609","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: me is hereby dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony, the defendant shall be maintained on the medical insurance available thro"}
{"id":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"938cbd2f-7ba4-4abc-96da-499a9c603704","slug":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140","title":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357609/gehrt-v-gehrt-no-74801-dec-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357609","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ties has broken down irretrievably and the same is hereby dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony"}
{"id":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"938cbd2f-7ba4-4abc-96da-499a9c603704","slug":"michael-l-gehrt-v-tammy-l-gehrt-3353140","title":"Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357609/gehrt-v-gehrt-no-74801-dec-8-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357609","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-08","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: by dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony, the defendant shall be maintained on the medical insurance available thro"}
{"id":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ffeb5-b1d6-4e8f-964d-3ef895f2e198","slug":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698","title":"Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365162/taylor-v-taylor-no-fa98-0062847s-feb-23-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365162","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-23","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor Date: 1999-02-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ffeb5-b1d6-4e8f-964d-3ef895f2e198","slug":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698","title":"Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365162/taylor-v-taylor-no-fa98-0062847s-feb-23-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365162","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-23","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ffeb5-b1d6-4e8f-964d-3ef895f2e198","slug":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698","title":"Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365162/taylor-v-taylor-no-fa98-0062847s-feb-23-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365162","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-23","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Express Mutual Fund valued as of the date of this memorandum. The husband shall be entitled to a credit of $2200. which represents that portion of the funds acquired prior to the marriage. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 6) The wife is awarded 50% of the Fleet IRA valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. 7) The wife is awarded 50% of the First Fidelity 401(k) valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be n"}
{"id":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d98ffeb5-b1d6-4e8f-964d-3ef895f2e198","slug":"michael-taylor-v-ellen-taylor-3360698","title":"Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365162/taylor-v-taylor-no-fa98-0062847s-feb-23-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365162","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-02-23","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): sequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 6) The wife is awarded 50% of the Fleet IRA valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. 7) The wife is awarded 50% of the First Fidelity 401(k) valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 8) In the event QDRO's are required to effectuate the above transfer of funds, counsel for the wife shall prepare the CT Page 2405 appropriate documents. Plaintiff's counsel shall cooperate in the drafting and acceptance"}
{"id":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a25ca9c-a6bc-40a2-aa15-4888d30e2699","slug":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811","title":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368271/loguercio-v-loguercio-no-fa94-0139606-s-dec-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368271","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 1995-12-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a25ca9c-a6bc-40a2-aa15-4888d30e2699","slug":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811","title":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368271/loguercio-v-loguercio-no-fa94-0139606-s-dec-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368271","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a25ca9c-a6bc-40a2-aa15-4888d30e2699","slug":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811","title":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368271/loguercio-v-loguercio-no-fa94-0139606-s-dec-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368271","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: issance Workshop, together with his tools and equipment associated with the business. 7. The defendant shall transfer title of the 1987 Volvo automobile to the plaintiff. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in his pension with the Scarsdale Board of Education by way of a Domestic Relations Order. The value of the Pension as of December 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue co"}
{"id":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a25ca9c-a6bc-40a2-aa15-4888d30e2699","slug":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811","title":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368271/loguercio-v-loguercio-no-fa94-0139606-s-dec-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368271","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sociated with the business. 7. The defendant shall transfer title of the 1987 Volvo automobile to the plaintiff. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in his pension with the Scarsdale Board of Education by way of a Domestic Relations Order. The value of the Pension as of December 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue concerning the survivor benefits that may be available to the plaintiff. Howe"}
{"id":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7a25ca9c-a6bc-40a2-aa15-4888d30e2699","slug":"mollie-loguercio-v-paul-loguercio-3363811","title":"Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368271/loguercio-v-loguercio-no-fa94-0139606-s-dec-19-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368271","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-12-19","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ber 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue concerning the survivor benefits that may be available to the plaintiff. However, the court expects the parties to resolve this outstanding issue either by stipulation or request for a hearing within six months of the date of this memorandum. 9. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the payment of the following debts: CT Page 14080 a. The Learning Clinic $10,900 b. Atty. Laviano $ 2,"}
{"id":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab103a7-fc54-4fcc-8fc6-a9a1860e0538","slug":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311","title":"Nagle v. Nagle","citation":"2025 ND 94","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10576723/nagle-v-nagle/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10576723","extracted_docket_number":"20240260","extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 ND 94","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-05-08","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Nagle v. Nagle Citation: 2025 ND 94. Extracted reporter citation: 2025 ND 94. Docket: 20240260. Date: 2025-05-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Nagle v. Nagle is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab103a7-fc54-4fcc-8fc6-a9a1860e0538","slug":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311","title":"Nagle v. Nagle","citation":"2025 ND 94","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10576723/nagle-v-nagle/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10576723","extracted_docket_number":"20240260","extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 ND 94","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-05-08","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab103a7-fc54-4fcc-8fc6-a9a1860e0538","slug":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311","title":"Nagle v. Nagle","citation":"2025 ND 94","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10576723/nagle-v-nagle/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10576723","extracted_docket_number":"20240260","extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 ND 94","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-05-08","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ntact.\" Id. ¶¶ 3, 8. This Court concluded the district court should have considered these facts \"in making an equitable division of the property.\" Id. ¶ 8. This Court also found the court's \"finding Joyce Nelson made no contribution to the accumulation of the retirement benefits since the 1991 divorce is without support in the record and is clearly erroneous.\" Id. [¶18] Stephenson also did not hold the parties' first marriage had to be considered when determining the length of the second marriage, which was itself long term. 2011 ND 57, ¶¶ 3-4 (remarried in 1997 and divorced in 2008). This Court appears to have recognized the sec"}
{"id":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6ab103a7-fc54-4fcc-8fc6-a9a1860e0538","slug":"nagle-v-nagle-11043311","title":"Nagle v. Nagle","citation":"2025 ND 94","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10576723/nagle-v-nagle/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10576723","extracted_docket_number":"20240260","extracted_reporter_citation":"2025 ND 94","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-05-08","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: divorce judgment. He argues the district court erred by treating the parties' second marriage as a long-term marriage and by finding a near equal distribution of the parties' marital estate was fair and equitable. Gene Nagle also claims the court erred in its property division because the court awarded Suzanne Nagle property that she previously waived her rights to in their first divorce. Suzanne Nagle argues Gene Nagle did not timely appeal the court's denial of his motion in limine and is precluded from appealing issues decided in reliance on Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 ND 176, 584 N.W.2d 527. We conclude the court's equitable distr"}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo. Date: 2000-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: intiff harmless regarding the automobile lease payments on the vehicle he operates. B. By way of Attorney's fees 1. No attorney's fees are awarded in favor of either party. C. Miscellaneous Orders 1. Counsel for the plaintiff is ordered to prepare the QDRO at the plaintiff's expense. The court retains jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise over the language of the QDRO. 2. All pendente lite orders remain in effect until the date this decision is filed and in the event there is any arrearage arising from such pendente lite orders such arrearage is not merged into the judgment. 3. The parties are to e"}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: wn on the defendant's financial affidavit are awarded to the defendant. 11. The defendant is ordered to name the plaintiff as beneficiary of his $100,000 Kemper Life Insurance until such time as she commences to receive payment under his United Technologies Retirement Plan. 12. The TIAA/CREF Plan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is to transfer that full fund to her in an amount of not less than $10,000 by December 13, 2000. In the event there is less than $10,000 in that plan then he is to pay the difference to her within sixty days from the date of this order. 13. Th"}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: separate account after the divorce papers were served on him. Shortly after telling his wife that he wanted a divorce, the defendant withdrew approximately $2,000 from joint savings and used it for vacation for himself and his girlfriend. He has a TIAA/CREF Pension Plan with a value of $10,000. He also has a United Technology Pension plan. The United Technology pension plan has a number of forms of benefit payment including the following based on his commencing to collect his pension benefit on April 1, 2013 at age 62: Form of benefit payment Monthly benefit Single Life Annuity $1,418.13 50% Contingent Annuity $1,"}
{"id":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d7c8526c-7bd7-4ec4-8f6a-360887ede8cb","slug":"nancy-a-geronimo-v-roger-j-geronimo-3330242","title":"Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334738/geronimo-v-geronimo-no-fa99-0154242-s-nov-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3334738","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-11-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: His period of credited service for pension benefits is January 4, 1979 to June 30, 1992. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: ORDERS A. By way of dissolution of marriage 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. CT Page 13953 B. By way of Alimony 1. No periodic or lump sum alimony i"}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge. Date: 2000-10-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: refinance but limited to legal fees and the like and excluding any tax or other escrow accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney"}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: red by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney for the minor children shall be divided equally between the parties and pai"}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney for the minor children shall be divided equally between t"}
{"id":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2eb738b6-aa7b-44ed-a94a-7405c94ec480","slug":"nancy-hooge-v-mark-e-hooge-3360328","title":"Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3364793/hooge-v-hooge-no-fa-99-0720338-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3364793","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: but limited to legal fees and the like and excluding any tax or other escrow accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney"}
{"id":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80755143-dee7-4d4e-a48a-e7b9c16c73f5","slug":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688","title":"Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348171/ollinger-v-ollinger-no-31-90-63-jul-29-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348171","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-07-29","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger Date: 1996-07-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80755143-dee7-4d4e-a48a-e7b9c16c73f5","slug":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688","title":"Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348171/ollinger-v-ollinger-no-31-90-63-jul-29-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348171","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-07-29","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80755143-dee7-4d4e-a48a-e7b9c16c73f5","slug":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688","title":"Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348171/ollinger-v-ollinger-no-31-90-63-jul-29-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348171","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-07-29","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: health insurance for the plaintiff under COBRA for the maximum period allowed by law, including orthodontia coverage. The parties are to divide equally the cost of said COBRA coverage. E. BY WAY OF PROPERTY ORDERS 1. The court assigns to the plaintiff by QDRO, one-half of the market value of all of the deferred compensation plans shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. Said one half is to also have an approximate equal basis. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the QDRO, including the language thereof. Counsel for the plaintiff is to prepare and sign the QDRO, and send"}
{"id":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80755143-dee7-4d4e-a48a-e7b9c16c73f5","slug":"nancy-m-ollinger-v-martin-ollinger-3343688","title":"Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348171/ollinger-v-ollinger-no-31-90-63-jul-29-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348171","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-07-29","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Y orthodontia, and a second option of $21.42 monthly that does not include orthodontia. The court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issues of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issues of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody and visitation, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following or"}
{"id":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10086d30-209a-482b-8d94-12e679c064c2","slug":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524","title":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371984/carpenter-v-carpenter-no-289742-apr-29-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371984","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-29","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter Date: 1991-04-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10086d30-209a-482b-8d94-12e679c064c2","slug":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524","title":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371984/carpenter-v-carpenter-no-289742-apr-29-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371984","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-29","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10086d30-209a-482b-8d94-12e679c064c2","slug":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524","title":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371984/carpenter-v-carpenter-no-289742-apr-29-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371984","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-29","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: parties have agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,000.00 dollars in counsel fees, payable from the Frederick Street escrow account. 4. No alimony is awarded either party. Elaine Gordon, Judge"}
{"id":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10086d30-209a-482b-8d94-12e679c064c2","slug":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524","title":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371984/carpenter-v-carpenter-no-289742-apr-29-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371984","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-29","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ve agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,000.00 dollars in counsel fees, payable from the Frederick Street escrow account. 4. No alimony is awarded either party. Elaine Gordon, Judge"}
{"id":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"10086d30-209a-482b-8d94-12e679c064c2","slug":"naomi-carpenter-v-vernon-carpenter-3367524","title":"Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3371984/carpenter-v-carpenter-no-289742-apr-29-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3371984","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-29","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: eet property and interest thereon, after payment for the costs outlined below, shall be divided between the parties, 75 per cent to the plaintiff 25 to the defendant. 2. As the parties have agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,"}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky. Date: 2000-10-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: terest in the joint fidelity account in the approximate amount of $134,170.00. 6. LIFE INSURANCE . The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers annuity in the approximate amount of $2,431.00 and the Walnut Hill annuity in the approximate"}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: l retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers annuity in the approximate amount of $2,431.00 and the Walnut Hill annuity in the approximate amount of $1,614.00. 10. AETNA PENSION . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff 32% of his exi"}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ors of Arts degree. In addition she has received a certification for interpersonal therapeutic medicine. When the parties married she was employed as a clerk at a printing company. Thereafter she was employed with the State of Connecticut, Ravies Real Estate, Pension Consultants and now is engaged in her present employment. Her previous employment consisted primarily of clerical and secretarial positions. For approximately two and one-half years she was engaged in recreational therapy at three nursing homes. CT Page 13399 The defendant is fifty-four years of age. He is in good health. He received a college degree from"}
{"id":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0413b247-4a13-4d59-a520-9fa975119ecb","slug":"natalia-zastawsky-v-roman-zastawsky-3365732","title":"Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370192/zastawsky-v-zastawsky-no-fa-99-0722170-oct-26-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370192","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-10-26","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): er, the defendant shall release to the plaintiff all of his interest in the joint fidelity account in the approximate amount of $134,170.00. 6. LIFE INSURANCE . The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers an"}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris. Date: 2000-08-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: . Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The defendant shall name the minor child as the irrevocable beneficiary of his policies as long has"}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: p of the 1997 Acura 2.2 CL and assume and pay the loan balance thereon. 8. Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The d"}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ownership of the 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee and the defendant shall retain ownership of the 1997 Acura 2.2 CL and assume and pay the loan balance thereon. 8. Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The de"}
{"id":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73074da5-61d9-4917-b993-355b9e45a2d5","slug":"norma-a-morris-v-ian-g-morris-3368781","title":"Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373240/morris-v-morris-no-fa-99-0720358-s-aug-28-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373240","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-08-28","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The defendant shall name the minor child as the irrevocable beneficiary of his policies as long has"}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds. Date: 1991-03-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: lifetime of the defendant and until the death or remarriage of the plaintiff, or the plaintiff reaches the age of 62 or the retirement of the defendant, whichever event shall first occur. Pension Plans CT Page 2706 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) giving her a 45% interest in the defendant's pension with his employer at the time of the defendant's retirement, based on its value as of March 1, 1991. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order giving her 50% of the value of the defendant's 401(k) Thrift Plan based on its value as of March 1, 1991. 3. The defend"}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriage broke down sometime in 1986. It was not until the summer of 1987 that the defendant took positive action to curb h"}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: is 46 years of age and in good health. A graduate of Georgia Institute of Technology, the defendant holds a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriag"}
{"id":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b6f3d934-e58e-4e9e-b835-52416528248b","slug":"pamela-j-reynolds-v-george-w-reynolds-3338597","title":"Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343083/reynolds-v-reynolds-no-fa89-0103324-s-mar-12-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343083","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-03-12","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the defendant holds a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriage broke down sometime in 1986. It was not until the summer of 1987 that the defenda"}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane Date: 1998-08-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to the following, addition to the above; 1. His 1996 Cadillac motor vehicle; 2. The Fleet Bank acc"}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Page 8904 and method of payment, the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to the following, addition to the above; 1. His 1996 Cadillac motor v"}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): llars). If the parties are unable to agree upon the time frame CT Page 8904 and method of payment, the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to"}
{"id":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"fd234624-24e4-4aea-8acf-487c7b217023","slug":"pamela-mckane-v-paul-mckane-3363837","title":"Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368297/mckane-v-mckane-no-fa97-0060211s-aug-7-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368297","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-08-07","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ing the course of the marriage. The plaintiff made no contribution to its acquisition or preservation nor did the wife do anything to enhance its value. The court does not consider this asset, acquired long before the marriage of the parties, in fashioning an equitable distribution of property. The Workmen's Compensation award does, however, provide the defendant with a stream of income to be considered when fashioning an award of periodic alimony. The court has given some weight to this income. This stream of income along with the defendant's income from his employment at Cigna, enabled the defendant to provide a comfortable lifest"}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick Date: 1992-11-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall enter on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. ALIMONY The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husban"}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husband, the Pruco life insurance policy #R0130335, which is reflecte"}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: particular, the wife shall retain the 1980 Pontiac and the 1986 Chrysler automobiles and the husband shall retain the 1987 Dodge Truck and the 1989 Cutty Cabin boat. Each party shall keep their respective bank accounts, securities, IRA plans, and respective pension rights free and clear of any claims of the other, subject only to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order set forth above, with regard to the security arrangement for the payment of alimony. BUSINESS INTERESTS The husband shall transfer to the wife, all of his right, title and interest in and to the business known as HAYESTOWN PACKAGE (LIQUOR) STORE. The"}
{"id":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"74c7c628-41f8-42ee-8eca-7267460fd707","slug":"patricia-a-krafick-v-john-h-krafick-3338909","title":"Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3343395/krafick-v-krafick-no-fa-91-0306820s-nov-19-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3343395","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-11-19","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: er on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. ALIMONY The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husban"}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan Date: 1998-10-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the defendant shall rollover all the funds in the CRM Retirement Account into the defendant's 401(k) plan at Hartford ITT. From the 401(k) plan, which should have a balance of approximately $391,000, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 4. The joint Nathan Lewis account shall be equally divided between the parties."}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: shall hold the plaintiff harmless in connection with any liabilities with respect thereto, including the carrying costs and any capital gains costs. 3. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the defendant shall rollover all the funds in the CRM Retirement Account into the defendant's 401(k) plan at Hartford ITT. From the 401(k) plan, which should have a balance of approximately $391,000, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain juri"}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 4. The joint Nathan Lewis account shall be equally divided between the parties. 5. The defendant shall retain his Nathan Lewis IRA account. 6. The plaintiff shall retain her Nathan Lewis IRA account. 7. The defendant shall retain his entire interest in the pension plan of his current employer, the Town of Greenwich. The plaintiff shall exe"}
{"id":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2844b152-9a53-4e1d-a3f0-1c2acea31482","slug":"patricia-a-morgan-v-c-robert-morgan-3341901","title":"Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346385/morgan-v-morgan-no-fa95-0149495-oct-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346385","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-10-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): One Hilton Head $ 10,000. 3. Joint Nathan Lewis Account (Stipulation) $ 70,349. 4. CRM Retirement Partners IRA (Stipulation) $366,000. 5. Nathan Lewis IRA (Defendant) (Stipulation) $ 40,660. 6. Nathan Lewis IRA (Plaintiff) (Stipulation) $ 16,173. 7. 401(k) at ITT Hartford (Stipulation) $ 25,810 The following orders may enter. 1. The plaintiff shall transfer by quitclaim deed to the defendant her interest in the marital residnece located at 24 Birdsong Place, Greenwich, Connecticut. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all liabilities in connection with the residence, including, wit"}
{"id":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ba51d2-acad-4ec5-96a9-1a702ec6674b","slug":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071","title":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345556/blue-v-blue-no-111756-jul-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345556","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-07-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue Date: 1994-07-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ba51d2-acad-4ec5-96a9-1a702ec6674b","slug":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071","title":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345556/blue-v-blue-no-111756-jul-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345556","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-07-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ba51d2-acad-4ec5-96a9-1a702ec6674b","slug":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071","title":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345556/blue-v-blue-no-111756-jul-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345556","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-07-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ed for medical insurance continuation through the defendant's group coverage through his employer. 7. The plaintiff is awarded one-half of the present value of the husband's pension with the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this order. 8. The funds held in escrow, approximately $6,000.00 are to be divided equally between the parties, provided, however, that from the husband's one-half share, the following funds shall be deducted: $300.00 to be given to the plaintiff wife as reimbursement for her medical expenses; $400.00 to the State of Connecticut for payment"}
{"id":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ba51d2-acad-4ec5-96a9-1a702ec6674b","slug":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071","title":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345556/blue-v-blue-no-111756-jul-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345556","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-07-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: n savings, which was being held in a trustee account by the defendant's former attorney, and has been depleted by the defendant, with the permission of the plaintiff, to approximately $6,000.00. In addition, the defendant has a vested interest in a retirement pension from the State of Connecticut, the present value of which is approximately $10,000.00, which will provide a monthly income at the time the defendant is eligible to retire. Both parties have automobiles, the plaintiff a 1987 Nissan, the defendant a 1988 Pontiac. Each shall retain the ownership interest in the respective automobiles, and the other spouse shal"}
{"id":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"80ba51d2-acad-4ec5-96a9-1a702ec6674b","slug":"patricia-blue-v-ernest-l-blue-3341071","title":"Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345556/blue-v-blue-no-111756-jul-12-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345556","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-07-12","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ical insurance continuation through the defendant's group coverage through his employer. 7. The plaintiff is awarded one-half of the present value of the husband's pension with the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this order. 8. The funds held in escrow, approximately $6,000.00 are to be divided equally between the parties, provided, however, that from the husband's one-half share, the following funds shall be deducted: $300.00 to be given to the plaintiff wife as reimbursement for her medical expenses; $400.00 to the State of Connecticut for payment"}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver. Date: 2002-10-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. PARENTING EDUCATION CLASS The Wife has not compl"}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: UTOMOBILES Each party shall retain the automobile listed on their Financial Affidavit, free and clear of any claim by the other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve an"}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: inancial Affidavit, free and clear of any claim by the other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation"}
{"id":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f0cff73b-7b5f-46af-b52c-605014189c86","slug":"patricia-carver-v-eric-carver-3327999","title":"Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332499/carver-v-carver-no-fa000438667-oct-2-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332499","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-02","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. PARENTING EDUCATION CLASS The Wife has not compl"}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow Date: 1995-04-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o the plaintiff his one-half interest in 12,000 shares of stock in Staff Builders and his one-half interest in 200 shares of stock in Perkin Elmer. 6. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a rollover into a tax free account or by way of a qualified domestic relations order whichever is required by the particular plan, the IRA Explorer Fund in the approximate amount of $16,843 as shown on defendant's CT Page 3409 financial affidavit. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $5,000.00 attorney's fees out of the proceeds of the sale of the Lakeville property or any refinancing, such payment to be secured by a mortgage with"}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ttel 6,702 276 Pacificorp 5,279 100 Primark 1,400 750 Quaker Oats 25,781 56 Union Pacific 3,017 176 Wells Fargo 28,116 382 Westinghouse 5,444 12000 Staff Builders 45,000 Stocks (non-inherited): 220 Perkin Elmer 5,875 1,000 Staff Builders 3,750 Pension and Retirement Plans: IRA Explorer Fund $16,843; IRA Trustees Inc. Fund, $13,528; IRA Capital Growth Fund $13,528; IRA Japan Fund $9,254 58,094 850 + Lead Soldiers, inherited, $45,000; 30 + French Soldiers inh. wife possess $1,500 + 62,500 -------- Total Assets $ 533,411 The plaintiff has earning skills which may be enhanced by up-to-date educational review. She wishes to"}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: C 962 293 Mattel 6,702 276 Pacificorp 5,279 100 Primark 1,400 750 Quaker Oats 25,781 56 Union Pacific 3,017 176 Wells Fargo 28,116 382 Westinghouse 5,444 12000 Staff Builders 45,000 Stocks (non-inherited): 220 Perkin Elmer 5,875 1,000 Staff Builders 3,750 Pension and Retirement Plans: IRA Explorer Fund $16,843; IRA Trustees Inc. Fund, $13,528; IRA Capital Growth Fund $13,528; IRA Japan Fund $9,254 58,094 850 + Lead Soldiers, inherited, $45,000; 30 + French Soldiers inh. wife possess $1,500 + 62,500 -------- Total Assets $ 533,411 The plaintiff has earning skills which may be enhanced by up-to-date educational re"}
{"id":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0c48d877-5132-414c-8429-91a80d1ca316","slug":"patricia-keating-durbrow-v-bruce-c-durbrow-3346779","title":"Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351257/durbrow-v-durbrow-no-fa-93-0063526-apr-28-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351257","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-04-28","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntiff his one-half interest in 12,000 shares of stock in Staff Builders and his one-half interest in 200 shares of stock in Perkin Elmer. 6. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a rollover into a tax free account or by way of a qualified domestic relations order whichever is required by the particular plan, the IRA Explorer Fund in the approximate amount of $16,843 as shown on defendant's CT Page 3409 financial affidavit. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $5,000.00 attorney's fees out of the proceeds of the sale of the Lakeville property or any refinancing, such payment to be secured by a mortgage with"}
{"id":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b8c6f9-edd3-4743-80dc-36fb1f536991","slug":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600","title":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366063/mainville-v-mainville-no-fa96-0251375s-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366063","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville Date: 1996-12-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b8c6f9-edd3-4743-80dc-36fb1f536991","slug":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600","title":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366063/mainville-v-mainville-no-fa96-0251375s-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366063","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b8c6f9-edd3-4743-80dc-36fb1f536991","slug":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600","title":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366063/mainville-v-mainville-no-fa96-0251375s-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366063","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f is to receive 50 percent of the present coverture portion of defendant's monthly pension earned during the years 1985 to November 27, 1996, payable to defendant on the first day of the month following his retirement. The defendant's counsel will prepare a QDRO for execution by the court to implement this order. In accordance with General Statutes § 46b-82 , the court enters the following order of permanent periodic alimony: Commencing December 6, 1996, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $185 weekly for a period of thirty-six months. Plaintiff shall receive a credit against this sum for a"}
{"id":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b8c6f9-edd3-4743-80dc-36fb1f536991","slug":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600","title":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366063/mainville-v-mainville-no-fa96-0251375s-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366063","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: is a member of the Connecticut Teachers Retirement System with thirty-two years of credited service and is eligible for normal retirement at age 60 on July 1, 2002. He contemplates early retirement in approximately two years. The plaintiff does not have any pension rights other than by virtue of her marriage and has no I.R.A., life insurance, savings or investments. Her present employment provides no health, hospital or dental benefits. The plaintiff has enjoyed spousal CT Page 7356 benefits of this type by virtue of defendant's employment. The marriage has broken down irretrievably without hope of reconciliation. D"}
{"id":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e4b8c6f9-edd3-4743-80dc-36fb1f536991","slug":"patricia-mainville-v-raymond-e-mainville-3361600","title":"Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3366063/mainville-v-mainville-no-fa96-0251375s-dec-4-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3366063","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-04","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This matter was returned to court on January 23, 1996. The plaintiff claims a dissolution of her marriage to defendant, an CT Page 7355 equitable distribution of real and personal property, a name change and counsel fees. The parties intermarried in Meriden, Connecticut, on November 15, 1985, and separated on or about August of 1995. This was the second marriage for each of them. No children were born of this union. The plaintiff and the defendant each have adult children from their former marriages. The plaint"}
{"id":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37ebea50-0edf-4245-a02e-17c3d5f55d38","slug":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871","title":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356341/vozzi-v-vozzi-no-30-39-87-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356341","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi Date: 1991-04-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37ebea50-0edf-4245-a02e-17c3d5f55d38","slug":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871","title":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356341/vozzi-v-vozzi-no-30-39-87-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356341","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37ebea50-0edf-4245-a02e-17c3d5f55d38","slug":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871","title":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356341/vozzi-v-vozzi-no-30-39-87-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356341","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: le for the mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 7. The plaintiff is awarded the 1982 Dodge Aries and the defendant is awarde"}
{"id":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37ebea50-0edf-4245-a02e-17c3d5f55d38","slug":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871","title":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356341/vozzi-v-vozzi-no-30-39-87-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356341","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: simple interest per year. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withh"}
{"id":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37ebea50-0edf-4245-a02e-17c3d5f55d38","slug":"patricia-vozzi-v-john-vozzi-3351871","title":"Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3356341/vozzi-v-vozzi-no-30-39-87-apr-25-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3356341","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-04-25","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 7. The plaintiff is awarded the 1982 Dodge Aries and the defendant is awarde"}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox Citation: 659 So. 2d 1051. Extracted reporter citation: 659 So. 2d 1051. Date: 1995-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ly execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing Orders. 17. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing such orders necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing transfers including a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Judgment shall enter in accordance herewith. DAVID L. FINEBERG, J. Superior Court Judge CT Page 389"}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: tiff at $125,000 and by Defendant at $115,000, and is subject to a mortgage in the approximate amount of $47,000. Adopting a value of $120,000 gives a present equity of approximately $73,000. Plaintiff's employment benefit plans consist of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan and a Capital Accumulation Plan, the latter also known as the 401k plan. As of January 1, 1995, the Pension Plan had a lump sum value of $103,729.63 and a value accumulated during the marriage of $96,936.24. Payments commence at age 65 retirement. Assuming present values and election of the normal 10 year guaranteed payment option, the plan would then"}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): in the approximate amount of $47,000. Adopting a value of $120,000 gives a present equity of approximately $73,000. Plaintiff's employment benefit plans consist of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan and a Capital Accumulation Plan, the latter also known as the 401k plan. As of January 1, 1995, the Pension Plan had a lump sum value of $103,729.63 and a value accumulated during the marriage of $96,936.24. Payments commence at age 65 retirement. Assuming present values and election of the normal 10 year guaranteed payment option, the plan would then pay $2,024 per month if Plaintiff remained in employment until retiremen"}
{"id":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"372b7877-a14d-4325-8699-de2ed534511b","slug":"patrick-f-cox-v-maureen-cox-3330902","title":"Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox","citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335398/cox-v-cox-no-fa-93-0062444-jan-25-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335398","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"659 So. 2d 1051","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-25","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: and deliver any and all documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing Orders. 17. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing such orders necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing transfers including a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Judgment shall enter in accordance herewith. DAVID L. FINEBERG, J. Superior Court Judge CT Page 389"}
{"id":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"783536ab-f58a-41b1-8052-f6f051bc18bf","slug":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255","title":"Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337750/roach-v-roach-no-fa-860080959s-may-20-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-05-20","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach. Date: 1991-05-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"783536ab-f58a-41b1-8052-f6f051bc18bf","slug":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255","title":"Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337750/roach-v-roach-no-fa-860080959s-may-20-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-05-20","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"783536ab-f58a-41b1-8052-f6f051bc18bf","slug":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255","title":"Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337750/roach-v-roach-no-fa-860080959s-may-20-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-05-20","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER In conjunction with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously entered by this Court in connection with the above matter providing that the plaintiff Paul J. Roach's entire interest in the Technicon Instruments Corporation Profit Sharing Plan be transferred to Attorney Glen A. Canner, court appointed guardian ad litem for the defendant Mary F. Roach and trustee, it is further ordered as follows: 1. Attorne"}
{"id":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"783536ab-f58a-41b1-8052-f6f051bc18bf","slug":"paul-j-roach-v-mary-f-roach-3333255","title":"Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337750/roach-v-roach-no-fa-860080959s-may-20-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337750","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-05-20","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER In conjunction with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously entered by this Court in connection with the above matter providing that the plaintiff Paul J. Roach's entire interest in the Technicon Instruments Corporation Profit Sharing Plan be transferred to Attorney Glen A. Canner, court appointed guardian ad litem for the defendant Mary F. Roach and trustee, it is further ordered as follows: 1. Attorne"}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino Date: 1998-03-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the name of and for the benefit of the plaintiff. 4. The motor vehicles possessed and used by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be their sole property and any liabilities associated with said vehicles shall be the obligation of the owner. 5. Each party is to pay the liabilities set forth on their"}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to convey to plaintiff his interest in real property located at 5 Overvale Rd., Wolcott, CT and plaintiff will hold defendant harmless on this mortgage debt. Furniture and household effects to be the property of the plaintiff. 2. Defendant shall retain his pension benefits with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the"}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the name of and for the benefit of the plaintiff. 4. The motor vehicles possessed and used by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be their sole property and any liabilities associated with said vehicles shall be the obligation of the owner. 5. Each party is to pay the liabilities set forth on their"}
{"id":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5c5d33e5-937d-40d4-a8db-7581ad064f98","slug":"paula-m-spino-v-anthony-j-spino-3345290","title":"Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3349769/spino-v-spino-no-fa97-0138061-mar-27-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3349769","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-03-27","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: s that cost of daycare for the minor children. An arrearage of $1000 was agreed upon and defendant is to pay $20 per week on the arrearage. ALIMONY Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff $1 per year alimony until the youngest child reaches the age of 18. PROPERTY DIVISION 1. Defendant is to convey to plaintiff his interest in real property located at 5 Overvale Rd., Wolcott, CT and plaintiff will hold defendant harmless on this mortgage debt. Furniture and household effects to be the property of the plaintiff. 2. Defendant shall retain his pension benefits with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being"}
{"id":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42fa49ac-f96c-4af3-9d73-aedfad5feb77","slug":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300","title":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346784/westfall-v-westfall-no-fa-92-0060603-s-dec-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall Date: 1993-12-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42fa49ac-f96c-4af3-9d73-aedfad5feb77","slug":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300","title":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346784/westfall-v-westfall-no-fa-92-0060603-s-dec-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42fa49ac-f96c-4af3-9d73-aedfad5feb77","slug":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300","title":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346784/westfall-v-westfall-no-fa-92-0060603-s-dec-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ue of pension benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for temporary child support and CT Page 10668 temporary alimony which the court finds to be Eight Hundred Fifty-Five ($855.00) Dollars as of July 30, 1993, and also reimburse the plaintiff for telephone and Mastercard charges as shown in plaintiff's exhibits 4 and 5. 11. That the defenda"}
{"id":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42fa49ac-f96c-4af3-9d73-aedfad5feb77","slug":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300","title":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346784/westfall-v-westfall-no-fa-92-0060603-s-dec-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hange in circumstances so that the plaintiff, should she become liable for any of said debts the defendant intends to discharge in bankruptcy, that alimony would be increased to protect the interest of the plaintiff. 9. That the defendant's present value of pension benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for tempo"}
{"id":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42fa49ac-f96c-4af3-9d73-aedfad5feb77","slug":"peggy-j-westfall-v-robert-m-westfall-3342300","title":"Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346784/westfall-v-westfall-no-fa-92-0060603-s-dec-9-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-12-09","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ion benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for temporary child support and CT Page 10668 temporary alimony which the court finds to be Eight Hundred Fifty-Five ($855.00) Dollars as of July 30, 1993, and also reimburse the plaintiff for telephone and Mastercard charges as shown in plaintiff's exhibits 4 and 5. 11. That the defenda"}
{"id":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b86e19e-4acd-477c-93ee-ff193c1773e2","slug":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737","title":"Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357206/mancini-v-mancini-no-092292-feb-27-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357206","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-27","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini Date: 1991-02-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b86e19e-4acd-477c-93ee-ff193c1773e2","slug":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737","title":"Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357206/mancini-v-mancini-no-092292-feb-27-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357206","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-27","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b86e19e-4acd-477c-93ee-ff193c1773e2","slug":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737","title":"Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357206/mancini-v-mancini-no-092292-feb-27-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357206","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-27","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: nt, this alimony shall terminate when defendant qualifies for her share of plaintiff's pension as hereinafter provided. 5. The defendant is awarded a 40% interest in the plaintiff's pension plan and the attorney for the defendant shall prepare the necessary QDRO order. 6. The plaintiff shall have the right to acquire the defendant's interest in the family home known as 34 Shelter Hill Avenue, Watertown upon payment to her of $45,000 without adjustment to said sum. If plaintiff's source of funds is a mortgage, the defendant is ordered to cooperate in plaintiff's efforts to mortgage the premises. Upon tender of sai"}
{"id":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0b86e19e-4acd-477c-93ee-ff193c1773e2","slug":"pellegrino-mancini-v-mary-j-mancini-3352737","title":"Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357206/mancini-v-mancini-no-092292-feb-27-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357206","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-27","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: 1990 he earned $29,661 gross wages (Defendant's Exhibit #2) or $570 weekly gross wages. His financial affidavit lists $501 gross and after taxes, health and united way totaling $153, provides $348 net before deducting additional credit union item of $84 and a pension loan pay-back of $43. He testified that overtime has been cut back recently. In summary, the plaintiff worked throughout the marriage, except for periods of ill health. The defendant worked during the initial six years of the marriage until the first of the parties' three children were born. She returned to work in 1983, after a period of volunteer work,"}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada]. Citation: SCWC-20-0000038-haw. Extracted reporter citation: SCWC-20-0000038-haw. Date: 2025-09-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada]. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: education, and increased operational costs.\" S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3205, in 2018 Senate Journal, at 1363. 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, a former spouse may request entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The QDRO, like a HiDRO, \"creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan\" provided by the participant's private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Interpreting the application of a Q"}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: lliam's ERS retirement benefit, with payments to commence at \"the earliest date when [William] shall be qualified to retire.\" William subsequently qualified to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to"}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to disclose information regarding the value of his retirement benefits and further failed to make any payments pursuant to the 2012 order. In 2019, th"}
{"id":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f16de100-bcaf-4bda-b19d-d4397b5de9ba","slug":"perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01-31-2025-ada-155-haw-296-consolidated-with-caap-20","title":"Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada].","citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10671786/perreira-v-perreira-ica-mem-op-filed-01312025-ada-155-haw-296/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10671786","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"SCWC-20-0000038-haw","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2025-09-15","citation_year":2025,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"ERISA: a divorce action award and promptly paid.\" S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1058, in 2015 Senate Journal, at 1274. The committee further noted that the new provision would \"help align [HRS] chapter 88 . . . to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act [(ERISA)].\" Id. Under ERISA, by way of amendment through the Retirement Equity 3 William rejects this conclusion. He argues that, because Act 30 amending HRS § 88-93.5 \"specified that the Act would take effect in the future – on July 1, 2020,\" the statute should be read only to apply prospectively. [App. at 7-8, SC Dkt. 1:9-11] This contention is belied by the l"}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Date: 1994-01-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: d as indicated by the issuing court.] DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER 1. It is acknowledged that the State of Connecticut Teachers' Retirement System is a governmental retirement system, and so is not subject to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code regarding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, nevertheless it does recognize valid orders of a court not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 167a of the Connecticut General Statutes. 2. This Domestic Relations Order (Order) assigns a portion of the benefits in the Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System (the Plan) from Peter Meyer to Martha J. Meyer pursuant to Connecticut General Sta"}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ments made to Martha J. Meyer. 11. While is it anticipated that the Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System will pay directly to Martha J. Meyer the benefit awarded to her, Peter Meyer is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he receives any retirement benefits under the Plan that are due to Martha J. Meyer but paid to Peter Meyer. Peter Meyer is ordered and decreed to pay the benefit defined above directly to Martha J. Meyer within three days after receipt of him. Dated at Danbury, Connecticut on January , 1994. Socrates H. Mihalakos, Judge"}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: (the Plan) from Peter Meyer to Martha J. Meyer pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b-81 . 3. Participant in the Plan is Peter Meyer, Plan Membership no. 070754, whose last known mailing address is P.O. Box 287, Easton, Connecticut 06612. 4. Alternate payee is Martha J. Meyer, Social Security CT Page 847 no. 570-54-9733, whose last known mailing address is 81 Stepney Road, Redding, Connecticut 06896. 5. The Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System is hereby ordered to assign 40% of Peter Meyer's present accrued benefits as of November 12, 1993 (28.3 credited years of service) to Martha J. Meyer. Present"}
{"id":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d0d0c18c-bd50-4551-81ed-22ce8ecf3602","slug":"peter-e-meyer-v-martha-meyer-3335315","title":"Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer","citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339805/meyer-v-meyer-no-fa-91-0306544s-jan-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339805","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-01-05","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER 1. It is acknowledged that the State of Connecticut Teachers' Retirement System is a governmental retirement system, and so is not subject to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code regarding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, nevertheless it does recognize valid orders of a court not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 167a of the Connecticut"}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell Date: 1993-01-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: usband shall designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently ex"}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: IFE INSURANCE The husband shall designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Pa"}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ng to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently exist. HEALTH INSURANCE The husband shall maintain for the benefit of the minor children all medical and dental insurance which is available to him through any place of employment. In the event the wife's employment also provides such insurance benefits, she shall likewise maintai"}
{"id":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"30f710b3-ab6a-4257-a3a0-5ee2190ad8c4","slug":"peter-j-farrell-v-arleen-f-farrell-3341069","title":"Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345554/farrell-v-farrell-no-fa-91-0306538s-jan-26-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345554","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-01-26","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ll designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently ex"}
{"id":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90846038-922e-4931-af69-ff70e5b57cbb","slug":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146","title":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367607/buttress-v-buttress-no-30-54-91-apr-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367607","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress Date: 1993-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90846038-922e-4931-af69-ff70e5b57cbb","slug":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146","title":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367607/buttress-v-buttress-no-30-54-91-apr-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367607","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90846038-922e-4931-af69-ff70e5b57cbb","slug":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146","title":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367607/buttress-v-buttress-no-30-54-91-apr-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367607","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: assign to the wife one-half of his IBM pension (said sum amounting to $2,115.50 per month). In order to affect such transfer, a qualified Family Relations order is entered assigning the wife to one-half interest in said pension as described in preparation of QDRO under the IBM Retirement Plan attached hereto. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the order is approved by the pension plan administrator. 5. Upon receipt of this decision, the parties shall immediately list for sale, with Eileen Foran of the Shaker Realty Company, the marital domicile located at 16 Lampost Drive, West Redding, Connecticut, at a li"}
{"id":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90846038-922e-4931-af69-ff70e5b57cbb","slug":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146","title":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367607/buttress-v-buttress-no-30-54-91-apr-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367607","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: work. The husband, prior to his retirement in May of 1987, worked for I.B.M. He started with the company as a clerk and rose to be director of personnel for a unit of 5,000. He directly supervised people as part of his job. When the company offered an early retirement plan, he took it. His wife was not in favor of his retiring early because she was concerned about what he would do during retirement. It was not necessary for health or any other reason for him to take an early retirement. He indicated that he thought he would like to do something else and that was one of the reasons for his retiring early. Since his retirement,"}
{"id":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"90846038-922e-4931-af69-ff70e5b57cbb","slug":"peter-s-buttress-v-alexine-j-buttress-3363146","title":"Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3367607/buttress-v-buttress-no-30-54-91-apr-22-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3367607","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-22","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: d that the allegations of the complaint are true. 3. The husband is ordered to pay to the wife as lump sum alimony the sum of $10,200.00, payable over a period of five years in $170.00 per month. 4. The husband shall assign to the wife one-half of his IBM pension (said sum amounting to $2,115.50 per month). In order to affect such transfer, a qualified Family Relations order is entered assigning the wife to one-half interest in said pension as described in preparation of QDRO under the IBM Retirement Plan attached hereto. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the order is approved by the pension plan administrat"}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax Date: 1999-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Philip Wax v. Angela Wax is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and of the defendant, the following, to wit: a. Hartford TSA; b. Royal TSA #1; c. Royal TSA #2 5. The parties shall divide the respective pensions (New York State Teachers' Retirement System and Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System) by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, each transferring to the other a monthly benefit equal to one-half of the monthly retirement benefit as entitled as of the date of dissolution, together with any joint and survivor death benefits as of the date of dissolution. The court retains jurisdiction to effect this order. 6. Any refund of taxes to be received due to joint tax returns filed or to"}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: He also has three 403(b) accounts valued at $162,628.47, two $162,628.47, two bank accounts listed at $212.99 and a coin collection valued at $750.00. The defendant lists three deferred compensation plans totaling $62,694.00, a Connecticut, State Teachers' Retirement Plan valued at $38,941.00 and bank accounts totaling $244.00. The parties have owned the marital home located at one Old Witch Court, Rowayton since December, 1986. It was purchased upon sale of their initial home known as 5 Mystic Court, Norwalk. They agree that the current fair market value is $475,000.00. It is CT Page 730 encumbered by a first mortgage bal"}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: efendant's initial teaching assignments were in Yonkers and then in Port Chester until her first pregnancy. She then worked as a substitute teacher and as a tutor, working part-time in Darien as well while caring for the children. The plaintiff has a vested pension for New York State teachers which will pay him $55,581.00 annually commencing on June 4, 1999. He also has three 403(b) accounts valued at $162,628.47, two $162,628.47, two bank accounts listed at $212.99 and a coin collection valued at $750.00. The defendant lists three deferred compensation plans totaling $62,694.00, a Connecticut, State Teachers' Retir"}
{"id":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6fec8515-69e9-4119-8fb0-1e261417bce6","slug":"philip-wax-v-angela-wax-3369471","title":"Philip Wax v. Angela Wax","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3373930/wax-v-wax-no-fa97-0160429-s-jan-7-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3373930","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-07","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: defendant, the following, to wit: a. Hartford TSA; b. Royal TSA #1; c. Royal TSA #2 5. The parties shall divide the respective pensions (New York State Teachers' Retirement System and Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System) by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, each transferring to the other a monthly benefit equal to one-half of the monthly retirement benefit as entitled as of the date of dissolution, together with any joint and survivor death benefits as of the date of dissolution. The court retains jurisdiction to effect this order. 6. Any refund of taxes to be received due to joint tax returns filed or to"}
{"id":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d01822b5-57c1-4ab7-b279-b53c486faddf","slug":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664","title":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370124/del-grosso-v-del-grosso-no-52-25-76-aug-11-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370124","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-08-11","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso Date: 1993-08-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d01822b5-57c1-4ab7-b279-b53c486faddf","slug":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664","title":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370124/del-grosso-v-del-grosso-no-52-25-76-aug-11-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370124","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-08-11","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d01822b5-57c1-4ab7-b279-b53c486faddf","slug":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664","title":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370124/del-grosso-v-del-grosso-no-52-25-76-aug-11-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370124","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-08-11","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: as available through their employment. All unreimbursed medical and dental expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provi"}
{"id":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d01822b5-57c1-4ab7-b279-b53c486faddf","slug":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664","title":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370124/del-grosso-v-del-grosso-no-52-25-76-aug-11-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370124","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-08-11","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provide the wife with copies of his tax returns for so long a"}
{"id":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d01822b5-57c1-4ab7-b279-b53c486faddf","slug":"rae-del-grosso-v-charles-del-grosso-3365664","title":"Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370124/del-grosso-v-del-grosso-no-52-25-76-aug-11-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370124","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-08-11","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: le through their employment. All unreimbursed medical and dental expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provi"}
{"id":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da4431a4-1e82-46e9-a043-e398131f2919","slug":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749","title":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331249/gonzalez-v-gonzalez-no-fa95-0249717-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331249","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez Date: 1996-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da4431a4-1e82-46e9-a043-e398131f2919","slug":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749","title":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331249/gonzalez-v-gonzalez-no-fa95-0249717-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331249","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da4431a4-1e82-46e9-a043-e398131f2919","slug":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749","title":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331249/gonzalez-v-gonzalez-no-fa95-0249717-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331249","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ology Corporation. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court for its execution authorizing and recognizing the right of the plaintiff to receive a monthly benefit payment at the same time and in the same manner as payments are made to the plaintiff based upon the present value of the accrued benefit of $23,235. All payments are to be made from the pension plan vested in the defendant due from the United"}
{"id":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da4431a4-1e82-46e9-a043-e398131f2919","slug":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749","title":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331249/gonzalez-v-gonzalez-no-fa95-0249717-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331249","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: laintiff. The periodic payments of alimony shall be made by a wage execution. After considering the elements contained in § 46b-81 , assignment of property and transfer of title, the court assigns to the plaintiff 50 percent of the present value of the pension benefit which the defendant is entitled to receive from the United Aircraft Division of the United Technology Corporation. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to subm"}
{"id":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"da4431a4-1e82-46e9-a043-e398131f2919","slug":"ramona-gonzalez-v-guillermo-gonzalez-3326749","title":"Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331249/gonzalez-v-gonzalez-no-fa95-0249717-apr-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331249","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-04-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: oration. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court for its execution authorizing and recognizing the right of the plaintiff to receive a monthly benefit payment at the same time and in the same manner as payments are made to the plaintiff based upon the present value of the accrued benefit of $23,235. All payments are to be made from the pension plan vested in the defendant due from the United"}
{"id":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a7f2678-ee2d-4ee1-ad0c-061ff12b4c1f","slug":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347","title":"Rathblott v. Rathblott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348829/rathblott-v-rathblott-no-fa-97-0162348-s-jan-13-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348829","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-13","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"Rathblott v. Rathblott Date: 1999-01-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Rathblott v. Rathblott is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a7f2678-ee2d-4ee1-ad0c-061ff12b4c1f","slug":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347","title":"Rathblott v. Rathblott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348829/rathblott-v-rathblott-no-fa-97-0162348-s-jan-13-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348829","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-13","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a7f2678-ee2d-4ee1-ad0c-061ff12b4c1f","slug":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347","title":"Rathblott v. Rathblott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348829/rathblott-v-rathblott-no-fa-97-0162348-s-jan-13-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348829","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-13","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: s a fair market value of $250,000 and should be awarded to the Wife. C. The Mead Condo I has a fair market value of $135,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. D. The Mead Condo II shall be sold upon terms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market"}
{"id":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a7f2678-ee2d-4ee1-ad0c-061ff12b4c1f","slug":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347","title":"Rathblott v. Rathblott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348829/rathblott-v-rathblott-no-fa-97-0162348-s-jan-13-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348829","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-13","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: D. The Mead Condo II shall be sold upon terms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market value of $30,000 and should be awarded to Wife. H. The Husband's Automobile has a fair market value of $7,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. I. Pursuit to t"}
{"id":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3a7f2678-ee2d-4ee1-ad0c-061ff12b4c1f","slug":"rathblott-v-rathblott-3344347","title":"Rathblott v. Rathblott","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348829/rathblott-v-rathblott-no-fa-97-0162348-s-jan-13-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348829","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-01-13","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market value of $30,000 and should be awarded to Wife. H. The Husband's Automobile has a fair market value of $7,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. I. Pursuit to the stipulation dated September 8, 1998 the p"}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing Date: 1999-10-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: OMPENSATION PLANS The 401K portion of the husband's retirement account shall be CT Page 13725 equally divided between the parties. The remainder of the husband's pension plan shall be divided with 25 percent going to the wife and 75 percent to the husband. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be drafted and implemented, and the Court retains jurisdiction in connection therewith. MEDICAL INSURANCE If the wife does not have medical insurance as an incident of any employment, the husband shall cooperate with the wife to assist her in obtaining medical insurance under COBRA. The wife shall be solely responsible for the payment of the insura"}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ould return to the Court for further orders in connection therewith. Each party shall have sole ownership of the life insurance policy listed on the respective financial affidavit. PENSION AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS The 401K portion of the husband's retirement account shall be CT Page 13725 equally divided between the parties. The remainder of the husband's pension plan shall be divided with 25 percent going to the wife and 75 percent to the husband. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be drafted and implemented, and the Court retains jurisdiction in connection therewith. MEDICAL INSURANCE If the wife does not"}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e each claim that the other party is capable of earning sufficient moneys to support himself or herself, and the wife further claims that the husband has the income to contribute to her support by way of alimony. The husband entered this marriage with prior pension benefits dating from 1987. During the period of the marriage, the benefits continued to accrue. Additionally, the husband has participated in a 401K plan only during the time of the marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal and the court finds that the husband has approximately $7000 and the wife has approximately $4800 in bank accounts. Th"}
{"id":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ae0c8330-44fb-4bf9-a509-69e6dd7c0e0b","slug":"renate-downing-v-kenneth-e-downing-3328807","title":"Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3333304/downing-v-downing-no-fa98-033-25-98-s-oct-12-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3333304","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-10-12","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s the income to contribute to her support by way of alimony. The husband entered this marriage with prior pension benefits dating from 1987. During the period of the marriage, the benefits continued to accrue. Additionally, the husband has participated in a 401K plan only during the time of the marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal and the court finds that the husband has approximately $7000 and the wife has approximately $4800 in bank accounts. The court further finds that the wife loaned her daughter $3000 which is still owed to the wife. The wife and husband each claim that the financial a"}
{"id":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5331abaf-2608-45dd-a584-39851e3ad847","slug":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768","title":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376224/sylvestre-v-sylvestre-no-108787-sep-5-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376224","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-05","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre Date: 1996-09-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5331abaf-2608-45dd-a584-39851e3ad847","slug":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768","title":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376224/sylvestre-v-sylvestre-no-108787-sep-5-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376224","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-05","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5331abaf-2608-45dd-a584-39851e3ad847","slug":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768","title":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376224/sylvestre-v-sylvestre-no-108787-sep-5-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376224","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-05","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: f shall assume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee"}
{"id":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5331abaf-2608-45dd-a584-39851e3ad847","slug":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768","title":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376224/sylvestre-v-sylvestre-no-108787-sep-5-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376224","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-05","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: November 15, 1996. The plaintiff shall assume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee"}
{"id":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5331abaf-2608-45dd-a584-39851e3ad847","slug":"rene-l-sylvestre-v-jean-m-sylvestre-3371768","title":"Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3376224/sylvestre-v-sylvestre-no-108787-sep-5-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3376224","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-05","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: sume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee"}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser. Docket: FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR. Date: 2002-07-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: he parties, both parties shall be trustees in any court-ordered resolution. The court shall retain jurisdiction over those funds in order to enforce the intent of the parties. b. MERF Retirement Plan The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) 37.5% of the present value of his MERE retirement plan. Said QDRO shall be prepared by the defendant's attorney. The defendant shall be responsible for any tax consequences from such transfer. The defendant shall pay for the cost to prepare the QDRO. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that the purpose and intent of this paragraph is carrie"}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ibuted in accordance with the previously mentioned stipulation (Exhibit C attached). 2. PEBSCO 457K ; approximate value $42,000.00. This asset is distributed in accordance with the previously mentioned stipulation (Exhibit C attached). 3. Plaintiff's MERE retirement plan with a present value of approximately $40,200.00. The court notes that approximately 75% of this value was funded and accumulated during the marriage. 4. Defendant's Lawrence and Memorial (Invesco) 401(k) plan ; its approximate present value is $20,200.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the marriage. 5. Defend"}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: perior Court commencing on March 27, 2002. Seven witnesses testified at trial; James Blair, a real estate appraiser; Lieutenant Daniel Nutt and Sergeant Thomas Crowell of the Waterford Police Department; George Joseph, a real estate appraiser; John Mancure, a pension valuator and the parties. From their testimony and all of the exhibits introduced at trial, the court finds the following facts. The parties were intermarried on May 27, 1987 in Groton, Connecticut. Three children are issue of the marriage; Jeffrey, born May 18, 1989; Daniel, born September 15, 1991; and Tricia, born November 17, 1995. The children requir"}
{"id":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"865054e5-dd24-4d3a-9cd7-2ba4e2bc4d72","slug":"richard-hauser-v-kathleen-hauser-3357608","title":"Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362074/hauser-v-hauser-no-fa-0559616s-jul-9-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362074","extracted_docket_number":"FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-07-09","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): (Exhibit C attached). 3. Plaintiff's MERE retirement plan with a present value of approximately $40,200.00. The court notes that approximately 75% of this value was funded and accumulated during the marriage. 4. Defendant's Lawrence and Memorial (Invesco) 401(k) plan ; its approximate present value is $20,200.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the marriage. 5. Defendant's Lincoln Financial Group 401(k) also through Lawrence and Memorial Hospital; its approximate present value is $23,000.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the m"}
{"id":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3abad34b-dabe-4825-beb7-55316a3a50ad","slug":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961","title":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341448/lafaille-v-lafaille-no-536315-sep-6-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-06","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille Date: 1996-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3abad34b-dabe-4825-beb7-55316a3a50ad","slug":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961","title":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341448/lafaille-v-lafaille-no-536315-sep-6-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-06","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3abad34b-dabe-4825-beb7-55316a3a50ad","slug":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961","title":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341448/lafaille-v-lafaille-no-536315-sep-6-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-06","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e plaintiff harmless from any claims thereon. Each shall pay one half of the $300 fee for the appraisal of said property. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with Stop Shop by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If defendant predeceases the plaintiff, said 50 percent shall revert to the plaintiff and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. Defendant shall be the survivor CT Page 5578-XXX beneficiary on plaintiff's share of the pension. (4) The plaintiff shall keep the business known as Phil's Bait Tackle free and clear of any claims by the defendant"}
{"id":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3abad34b-dabe-4825-beb7-55316a3a50ad","slug":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961","title":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341448/lafaille-v-lafaille-no-536315-sep-6-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-06","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: and that when she repays the parties $28,000, title to the premises will be transferred to her. The defendant admitted that Christine has repaid $20,000 which leaves a balance of $8,000. CT Page 5578-WWW During his employment, plaintiff has contributed to a pension at Stop Shop which will provide plaintiff with $370 monthly if he retires at age 55 and $640 monthly if he retires at age 62. Defendant has, by virtue of her employment, an IRA valued at $10,651 and a T. Rowe Price funds valued at $24,412. The other marital assets of the parties will be more specifically identified in the court's orders. The court fin"}
{"id":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"3abad34b-dabe-4825-beb7-55316a3a50ad","slug":"richard-lafaille-v-joan-lafaille-3336961","title":"Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3341448/lafaille-v-lafaille-no-536315-sep-6-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3341448","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-06","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: f harmless from any claims thereon. Each shall pay one half of the $300 fee for the appraisal of said property. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with Stop Shop by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If defendant predeceases the plaintiff, said 50 percent shall revert to the plaintiff and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. Defendant shall be the survivor CT Page 5578-XXX beneficiary on plaintiff's share of the pension. (4) The plaintiff shall keep the business known as Phil's Bait Tackle free and clear of any claims by the defendant"}
{"id":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4aad594-7b03-43c1-888c-4cc3156c3bf8","slug":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991","title":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347475/pettit-v-pettit-no-51-35-73-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347475","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit Date: 1993-04-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4aad594-7b03-43c1-888c-4cc3156c3bf8","slug":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991","title":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347475/pettit-v-pettit-no-51-35-73-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347475","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4aad594-7b03-43c1-888c-4cc3156c3bf8","slug":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991","title":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347475/pettit-v-pettit-no-51-35-73-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347475","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: affidavits filed with the court during the dissolution proceedings. (10) The furnishings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prep"}
{"id":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4aad594-7b03-43c1-888c-4cc3156c3bf8","slug":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991","title":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347475/pettit-v-pettit-no-51-35-73-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347475","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prepare the judgment in accordance with the Court's orders. ("}
{"id":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"d4aad594-7b03-43c1-888c-4cc3156c3bf8","slug":"richard-pettit-v-eileen-pettit-3342991","title":"Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347475/pettit-v-pettit-no-51-35-73-apr-23-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347475","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-04-23","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: s filed with the court during the dissolution proceedings. (10) The furnishings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prep"}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie. Date: 2001-05-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ar at a case management conference on July 26, 1999, the matter was dismissed. On September 14, 1999, the case was reopened. By agreement of the parties, pendente lite orders were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has r"}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: arents. 2. Financial orders In fashioning these orders, the court has also considered the statutory CT Page 6998 requirements, and in particular, the differentials in earing capacity between the husband and the wife, their individual abilities to accrue a pension, and the contributions of the wife to the care of the children and the home in the early years of the marriage, particularly during the period of time when the husband earned his educational degrees. a. Child Support Pursuant to Child Support guidelines, the wife shall pay to the husband $70.00 per week for the support and maintenance of the child. b."}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: se management conference on July 26, 1999, the matter was dismissed. On September 14, 1999, the case was reopened. By agreement of the parties, pendente lite orders were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has r"}
{"id":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"294cd4a3-8bca-443d-94c9-e37a5855dde5","slug":"richard-ritchie-jr-v-barbara-j-ritchie-3361517","title":"Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3365980/ritchie-v-ritchie-no-fa-99-0721109-may-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3365980","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-05-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has resided continuously in the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the filing of this action. All statutory stays have expired. Three children ha"}
{"id":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5017b94f-64ef-4b35-8901-fd0810c2e507","slug":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723","title":"Ritter v. Ritter","citation":"2024 ND 147","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131122/ritter-v-ritter/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10131122","extracted_docket_number":"20240041","extracted_reporter_citation":"2024 ND 147","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2024-07-18","citation_year":2024,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Ritter v. Ritter Citation: 2024 ND 147. Extracted reporter citation: 2024 ND 147. Docket: 20240041. Date: 2024-07-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Ritter v. Ritter is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5017b94f-64ef-4b35-8901-fd0810c2e507","slug":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723","title":"Ritter v. Ritter","citation":"2024 ND 147","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131122/ritter-v-ritter/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10131122","extracted_docket_number":"20240041","extracted_reporter_citation":"2024 ND 147","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2024-07-18","citation_year":2024,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5017b94f-64ef-4b35-8901-fd0810c2e507","slug":"ritter-v-ritter-10597723","title":"Ritter v. Ritter","citation":"2024 ND 147","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131122/ritter-v-ritter/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10131122","extracted_docket_number":"20240041","extracted_reporter_citation":"2024 ND 147","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2024-07-18","citation_year":2024,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: is within the range of evidence presented. In an appeal after a bench trial, this Court will not second-guess a district court's credibility determinations. Orwig v. Orwig, 2021 ND 33, ¶ 22, 955 N.W.2d 34 (cleaned up). [¶9] The district court must make an equitable distribution of the parties' property and debts. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1). In doing so, the court must consider all of the parties' assets and debts and apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 ND 86, ¶ 3, 990 N.W.2d 581. Although specific findings are not required under each Ruff-Fischer guideline, the court must state the rationale for its distribut"}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 2002-10-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: to his 401 (k) asset (defined contribution plan) through his place of employment. The defendant's claim to that plan, whether as survivor or beneficiary or otherwise, is entirely extinguished. 22. The defendant shall retain sole ownership of her Individual Retirement Account as shown on her financial affidavit of September 25, 2002. 23. As to bank accounts, investments, and tangible personal property not specifically allocated by this court herein and listed on the parties' financial affidavits dated September 25, 2002, each party shall retain the items and assets listed on his or her own affidavit. 24. The plaintiff shall"}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: k five days a week from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Because the company is doing well, the plaintiff considers his job to be secure for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff earns about $59,000 per year from his base salary plus small bonuses. The company offers no pension plan. The plaintiff started contributing to a 401 (k) plan about one year ago with a current value of $1,100. Medical insurance is available to the plaintiff through his employment. The plaintiff has arthritis in both his hips. He takes medication a few times a week to reduce the effects of the inflammation. Hip replacement CT Page 12754 surgery may be ne"}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e company is doing well, the plaintiff considers his job to be secure for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff earns about $59,000 per year from his base salary plus small bonuses. The company offers no pension plan. The plaintiff started contributing to a 401 (k) plan about one year ago with a current value of $1,100. Medical insurance is available to the plaintiff through his employment. The plaintiff has arthritis in both his hips. He takes medication a few times a week to reduce the effects of the inflammation. Hip replacement CT Page 12754 surgery may be necessary in the future. The plaintiff has engaged in co"}
{"id":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a543e538-f43c-45f5-bb71-2dd275da13c5","slug":"robert-j-jolly-v-joyce-m-barcley-3363595","title":"Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.","citation":"Domestic Relations Order","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3368055/jolly-v-barcley-no-fa01-0074568-s-oct-10-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3368055","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"Domestic Relations Order","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-10","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: arded $45,000 of the defendant's 403b plan through her place of employment as of this date plus any earnings or losses on that amount from this date until the actual transfer of funds. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and delivery of any Domestic Relations Order necessary to effectuate the transfer of this asset. The balance of the defendant's 403b asset is awarded solely to the defendant. 20. The defendant shall retain sole rights to her CT Page 12762 pension plan (defined benefit plan) through her place of employment. The plaintiff's claim to that plan, whether as survivor or beneficiary or otherwise, is entire"}
{"id":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4783cdb8-7d1f-4061-8460-cbc7d6aa890a","slug":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642","title":"Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375098/larson-v-mc-caffrey-no-103700-dec-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375098","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey Date: 1994-12-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4783cdb8-7d1f-4061-8460-cbc7d6aa890a","slug":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642","title":"Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375098/larson-v-mc-caffrey-no-103700-dec-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375098","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4783cdb8-7d1f-4061-8460-cbc7d6aa890a","slug":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642","title":"Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375098/larson-v-mc-caffrey-no-103700-dec-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375098","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ut, to the wife, subject to all encumbrances thereon which she shall pay and save him harmless therefrom. (2) The husband shall make the mortgage payment of principal, interest and taxes for December, 1994. (3) There is assigned and vested in the wife, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), sixty (60%) percent of the husband's Keough plan valued as of November 29, 1994. The other forty (40%) percent shall belong to the husband. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until the transfer has been accepted by the plan administrator. (4) Each party shall take, have and own the tangible personal property in his or her possess"}
{"id":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"4783cdb8-7d1f-4061-8460-cbc7d6aa890a","slug":"robert-j-larson-v-lynn-ann-mc-caffrey-3370642","title":"Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3375098/larson-v-mc-caffrey-no-103700-dec-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3375098","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-12-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: wife, subject to all encumbrances thereon which she shall pay and save him harmless therefrom. (2) The husband shall make the mortgage payment of principal, interest and taxes for December, 1994. (3) There is assigned and vested in the wife, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), sixty (60%) percent of the husband's Keough plan valued as of November 29, 1994. The other forty (40%) percent shall belong to the husband. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until the transfer has been accepted by the plan administrator. (4) Each party shall take, have and own the tangible personal property in his or her possess"}
{"id":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e41505ad-117d-4992-8c30-d9dca7c31d6c","slug":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999","title":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346483/heslin-v-heslin-no-fa-01-0726580s-sep-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346483","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin. Date: 2001-09-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e41505ad-117d-4992-8c30-d9dca7c31d6c","slug":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999","title":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346483/heslin-v-heslin-no-fa-01-0726580s-sep-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346483","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e41505ad-117d-4992-8c30-d9dca7c31d6c","slug":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999","title":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346483/heslin-v-heslin-no-fa-01-0726580s-sep-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346483","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ance package including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment and modify the alimony order based upon a substantial change in circumstances"}
{"id":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e41505ad-117d-4992-8c30-d9dca7c31d6c","slug":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999","title":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346483/heslin-v-heslin-no-fa-01-0726580s-sep-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346483","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: Empire in September of 1999 and received a severance package including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment an"}
{"id":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e41505ad-117d-4992-8c30-d9dca7c31d6c","slug":"robert-m-heslin-v-roberta-m-heslin-3341999","title":"Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346483/heslin-v-heslin-no-fa-01-0726580s-sep-14-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346483","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-14","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ge including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment and modify the alimony order based upon a substantial change in circumstances"}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose Date: 2000-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: the defendant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 consecutive months, beginning February 2000. Said payment is to be made to the defend"}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: , title and interest on the 1998 Chevrolet Malibu and shall hold the defendant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 c"}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e of trial reflect few assets. The only asset reported by the defendant is a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina valued at $2840 with no loan balance. The plaintiff Lists a 1998 Chevrolet Malibu valued at $17,000 with a loan balance of $15,000. The plaintiff is vested in a pension fund with the U.S. Postal Service and he has approximately $15,000 in a Thrift Savings Plan. The plaintiff also has 333 hours of vacation time accumulated with a value of approximately $6,300. An additional 908 hours of accumulated sick time has no redeemable monetary value as it must be used for medical or dental purposes and is forfeited upon termination"}
{"id":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"cccc881e-9ba3-4507-b01c-f10909135821","slug":"robert-m-sigafose-v-arlene-diaz-sigafose-3347470","title":"Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351947/sigafose-v-sigafose-no-fa-98-0065986-jan-7-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351947","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-01-07","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 consecutive months, beginning February 2000. Said payment is to be made to the defend"}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers Date: 1992-12-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert Summers v. Karen Summers is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: insurance in oral argument although, the financial affidavit does not show insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the sa"}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the satisfaction of the plan administrators in accordance with this court order. This court retains jurisdiction over this m"}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ow insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the satisfaction of the plan administrators in ac"}
{"id":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"377434f2-4121-4f8c-9e75-d67c66f785cc","slug":"robert-summers-v-karen-summers-3342691","title":"Robert Summers v. Karen Summers","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3347175/summers-v-summers-no-fa92-0121425-s-dec-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3347175","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-12-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: in oral argument although, the financial affidavit does not show insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the sa"}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti Date: 1997-09-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Visconti getting no repayment at all. From the time of her marriage to Visconti, Stamp's equity in the property improved from $26,250 to $58,200, an increase of $31,950. (She elected to make a gitt of one-half to her sister). The plaintiff shall execute a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), or its equivalent, transferring to the defendant the sum of $20,000 from her 401(K) plan. (Consideration has been given to a pendente lite transfer to the husband of $5000 from this account). The defendant's request that the parties refile their tax returns jointly for as many years as the IRS allows is denied. Given the financial circumstances"}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sses approximately $800 per week and nets approximately $483. He has no benefits however and provides his own car. His employer does not provide medical insurance and currently Stamp has him covered through her employer provided plan. Neither does he have any retirement plan. Neither has any significant savings other than Stamp's 401(K). Both parties have indicated a likelihood of future bankruptcy to get out of their financial dilemmas. With respect to the real estate now owned by Stamp and her sister, Marie Duphiney, there was no evidence that this was a fraudulent conveyance. Stamp was entitled to make a gift of the one"}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): ce in evaluating real estate, the Court finds the fair market value to be $142,000. The current mortgage balance is $83,800 leaving a total equity of $58,200. Stamp's half interest equals $29,100. The only other significant asset either party has is Stamp's 401(K) plan valued at $129,000. The plaintiff ascribes the breakdown of the marriage to the defendant's gambling habits and stresses caused by seemingly ever increasing debt. It would appear that the couple lived extravagantly, running up credit card debts, taking expensive vacations (for example, a trip to Italy for the wedding of Stamp's son cost approximate"}
{"id":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"896c6887-6ef6-4f6c-b01a-8a94ae72f5c1","slug":"roberta-d-stamp-v-anthony-j-visconti-3337898","title":"Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3342384/stamp-v-visconti-no-fa-96-60422-s-sep-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3342384","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-09-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: etting no repayment at all. From the time of her marriage to Visconti, Stamp's equity in the property improved from $26,250 to $58,200, an increase of $31,950. (She elected to make a gitt of one-half to her sister). The plaintiff shall execute a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), or its equivalent, transferring to the defendant the sum of $20,000 from her 401(K) plan. (Consideration has been given to a pendente lite transfer to the husband of $5000 from this account). The defendant's request that the parties refile their tax returns jointly for as many years as the IRS allows is denied. Given the financial circumstances"}
{"id":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cf0269-da8c-4c45-b293-8983fdbcf93c","slug":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841","title":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344326/gosselin-v-gosselin-no-0117793-jun-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344326","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin. Date: 2000-06-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cf0269-da8c-4c45-b293-8983fdbcf93c","slug":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841","title":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344326/gosselin-v-gosselin-no-0117793-jun-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344326","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cf0269-da8c-4c45-b293-8983fdbcf93c","slug":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841","title":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344326/gosselin-v-gosselin-no-0117793-jun-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344326","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ute checking accounts, a New London Trust Savings account and a Charter Oak Federal Credit Union account (see defendant's financial affidavit), 55% to the plaintiff and 45% to the defendant. The transfer to the defendant where necessary shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by some other means whereby no tax is levied against the plaintiff or defendant by virtue of such transfer. 3. The plaintiff shall have no interest in the real estate located at 13 Woodward Street and 125 Reynolds Street, Danielson, Connecticut. 4. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant $2,500.00 which represents one-half of the Fleet Bank account"}
{"id":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cf0269-da8c-4c45-b293-8983fdbcf93c","slug":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841","title":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344326/gosselin-v-gosselin-no-0117793-jun-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344326","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): e supervisor earning approximately $42,000.00 per year. Because of stress and constant problems with Mrs. Clark, the administrator at Norwich Rehab, he voluntarily left his employment in July 1999. (See Defendant's Exhibit A.) When he left, plaintiff took his 401K of $12,181.48 with him. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.) In August 1999 plaintiff became employed at Douglas Manor, Windham, Connecticut doing similar employment for a gross weekly wage of $650.00 per week or about $33,800.00 per year. The defendant, who was born on March 22, 1949, appears to be in good health. During the marriage she held various types of"}
{"id":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"21cf0269-da8c-4c45-b293-8983fdbcf93c","slug":"roger-h-gosselin-v-maureen-e-gosselin-3339841","title":"Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3344326/gosselin-v-gosselin-no-0117793-jun-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3344326","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-06-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ng accounts, a New London Trust Savings account and a Charter Oak Federal Credit Union account (see defendant's financial affidavit), 55% to the plaintiff and 45% to the defendant. The transfer to the defendant where necessary shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by some other means whereby no tax is levied against the plaintiff or defendant by virtue of such transfer. 3. The plaintiff shall have no interest in the real estate located at 13 Woodward Street and 125 Reynolds Street, Danielson, Connecticut. 4. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant $2,500.00 which represents one-half of the Fleet Bank account"}
{"id":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"897856ab-85b9-45ab-b1e1-3c632429be99","slug":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927","title":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351405/rybczyk-v-rybczyk-no-70292-nov-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351405","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk Date: 1994-11-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"897856ab-85b9-45ab-b1e1-3c632429be99","slug":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927","title":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351405/rybczyk-v-rybczyk-no-70292-nov-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351405","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"897856ab-85b9-45ab-b1e1-3c632429be99","slug":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927","title":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351405/rybczyk-v-rybczyk-no-70292-nov-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351405","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: mony stated above shall be nonmodifiable as to amount and term unless the defendant becomes totally disabled and receives an early disability annuity in lieu of a retirement annuity. At that time periodic alimony shall cease and the plaintiff shall receive by qualified domestic relations order 1/3 of such benefits as of their accrual as of October 31, 1994. The court, having found arrearages in the amount of $3,300.00, orders that it be paid, immediately by applying one half of a tax refund of $1,373.00 now being held in escrow to such arrearages and the balance at such time as the defendant settles his workers compensation claim. The balance o"}
{"id":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"897856ab-85b9-45ab-b1e1-3c632429be99","slug":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927","title":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351405/rybczyk-v-rybczyk-no-70292-nov-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351405","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: en. There is no equity in the marital home. Said property is to be sold with the proceeds, if any, to be divided equally, after expenses, between the parties. The plaintiff is to receive one half, by qualified domestic CT Page 11122 relations order of the pension due the defendant as of October 28, 1994. The defendant is to transfer to the plaintiff title to the 1987 Chevrolet Celebrity. The plaintiff is to transfer to the defendant title to the 1985 Chevrolet Astro. The defendant shall maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000.00 as available through his employer and name the children as irre"}
{"id":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"897856ab-85b9-45ab-b1e1-3c632429be99","slug":"rosemarie-rybczyk-v-joseph-rybczyk-3346927","title":"Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351405/rybczyk-v-rybczyk-no-70292-nov-2-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351405","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-02","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: d above shall be nonmodifiable as to amount and term unless the defendant becomes totally disabled and receives an early disability annuity in lieu of a retirement annuity. At that time periodic alimony shall cease and the plaintiff shall receive by qualified domestic relations order 1/3 of such benefits as of their accrual as of October 31, 1994. The court, having found arrearages in the amount of $3,300.00, orders that it be paid, immediately by applying one half of a tax refund of $1,373.00 now being held in escrow to such arrearages and the balance at such time as the defendant settles his workers compensation claim. The balance o"}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog Date: 1999-09-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: equally divided between the parties except that the plaintiff shall receive an additional amount of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) to recognize her interest in the Oxford property which was awarded to the defendant. Said division shall be accomplished by a QDRO or other means as the parties shall agree. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension at United Technologies/Sikorsky which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 3. The plaintiff shall retain her interest in her City of Ansonia retirement plan free from any claim by the defendant. Said pension plan has not yet vested. DEBTS"}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ition, the defendant shall be responsible for 53% and the plaintiff shall be responsible for 47% of all unreimbursed medical and dental expenses that exceeds $100 per year per child, in accordance with the child support guidelines. CT Page 12301 PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLANS 1. The defendants 401(k) plan shall be equally divided between the parties except that the plaintiff shall receive an additional amount of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) to recognize her interest in the Oxford property which was awarded to the defendant. Said division shall be accomplished by a QDRO or other means as the parties shall agree. 2. The"}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ximately 5 years, she has been gainfully employed full time by the Ansonia School Board. The plaintiff earns a gross of $477.40 per week and a net of $362.90 per week. However, as Counsel pointed out, she claims no dependents for tax purposes. The plaintiff's pension of unknown amount will vest in 2014. The plaintiff is 50 years of age. She has had some serious health problems in the more recent past and is taking medication for high blood pressure, cholesterol and panic attacks. She had coronary bypass surgery in CT Page 12297 the fall of 1997. The plaintiff was in charge of running the finances of the family home an"}
{"id":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1bb6b9fb-b03c-429e-9307-9436803f8540","slug":"rosemary-maciog-v-michael-maciog-3355669","title":"Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3360136/maciog-v-maciog-no-fa98006-42-17-sep-8-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3360136","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-09-08","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): erty came from the funds and profits he made selling the cars he repaired, and his carpentry. The defendant claims he was unaware of the credit card debt run up by the plaintiff. The defendant took out substantial sums from his pay which were applied to his 401(k) plan at Sikorsky's. The CT Page 12298 401(k) has a present value of approximately $327,000. according to plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Both parties have pensions. The defendant's pension is vested. The plaintiff also has a pension which will vest in April 2014. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve their marital difficulties. The court declines to"}
{"id":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adc0068f-caea-460d-88c1-ccdf7bca761e","slug":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702","title":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351180/yarhouse-v-yarhouse-no-0539821-jun-26-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351180","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-06-26","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr. Date: 1997-06-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adc0068f-caea-460d-88c1-ccdf7bca761e","slug":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702","title":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351180/yarhouse-v-yarhouse-no-0539821-jun-26-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351180","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-06-26","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adc0068f-caea-460d-88c1-ccdf7bca761e","slug":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702","title":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351180/yarhouse-v-yarhouse-no-0539821-jun-26-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351180","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-06-26","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ck the status of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The parties shall be equally responsible for all unpaid debts which accrued during the marriage. 10. The Defendant shall pay $1,000.00"}
{"id":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adc0068f-caea-460d-88c1-ccdf7bca761e","slug":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702","title":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351180/yarhouse-v-yarhouse-no-0539821-jun-26-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351180","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-06-26","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: om the other. Also, each party shall execute the necessary authorization to permit the other party to check the status of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The p"}
{"id":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"adc0068f-caea-460d-88c1-ccdf7bca761e","slug":"rosemary-yarhouse-v-herbert-l-yarhouse-jr-3346702","title":"Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3351180/yarhouse-v-yarhouse-no-0539821-jun-26-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3351180","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-06-26","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: tus of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The parties shall be equally responsible for all unpaid debts which accrued during the marriage. 10. The Defendant shall pay $1,000.00"}
{"id":"russ-v-russ-11072021::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2bdd0e6-97e7-4e4a-a575-a0fabc71afe4","slug":"russ-v-russ-11072021","title":"Russ v. Russ","citation":"2021 NMSC 014","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10605433/russ-v-russ/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10605433","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 NMSC 014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-04-01","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Russ v. Russ Citation: 2021 NMSC 014. Extracted reporter citation: 2021 NMSC 014. Date: 2021-04-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Russ v. Russ is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"russ-v-russ-11072021::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2bdd0e6-97e7-4e4a-a575-a0fabc71afe4","slug":"russ-v-russ-11072021","title":"Russ v. Russ","citation":"2021 NMSC 014","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10605433/russ-v-russ/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10605433","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 NMSC 014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-04-01","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"russ-v-russ-11072021::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2bdd0e6-97e7-4e4a-a575-a0fabc71afe4","slug":"russ-v-russ-11072021","title":"Russ v. Russ","citation":"2021 NMSC 014","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10605433/russ-v-russ/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10605433","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 NMSC 014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-04-01","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: of Appeals correctly determined that Howell does not apply to this case. {4} If the Howell Court's application of the Mansell rule applies, Veteran may unilaterally change his federal benefit as he did. This change precludes Spouse from receiving any of his retirement benefit from the federal government, regardless of what he agreed to when they divorced. If the Howell Court's application of the Mansell rule does not apply, then Veteran must indemnify Spouse for her share of his waived retirement benefit. Although equitable principles may suggest that we should determine that Howell does not apply in this case, the Supremacy Cla"}
{"id":"russ-v-russ-11072021::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b2bdd0e6-97e7-4e4a-a575-a0fabc71afe4","slug":"russ-v-russ-11072021","title":"Russ v. Russ","citation":"2021 NMSC 014","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10605433/russ-v-russ/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"10605433","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 NMSC 014","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-04-01","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Aragon Albuquerque, NM for Petitioner-Respondent OPINION THOMSON, Justice {1} The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (2018), establishes that states \"may treat veterans' disposable retired pay as divisible property, i.e., community property divisible upon divorce.\" Howell v. Howell, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 1403 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii) \"expressly exclude[s] from its definition of ‘disposable retired pay' amounts deducted from that pay ‘as a result of a waiver . . . required by law in order to receive' disability benef"}
{"id":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"139002b5-28ee-437c-be39-6f4cbecced7b","slug":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261","title":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358729/polaco-v-polaco-no-fa95-0129767-may-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-05-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco Date: 1997-05-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"139002b5-28ee-437c-be39-6f4cbecced7b","slug":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261","title":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358729/polaco-v-polaco-no-fa95-0129767-may-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-05-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"139002b5-28ee-437c-be39-6f4cbecced7b","slug":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261","title":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358729/polaco-v-polaco-no-fa95-0129767-may-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-05-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: and the minor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the entry of judgment. VERTEFEUILLE, J."}
{"id":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"139002b5-28ee-437c-be39-6f4cbecced7b","slug":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261","title":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358729/polaco-v-polaco-no-fa95-0129767-may-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-05-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): the plaintiff and the minor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the en"}
{"id":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"139002b5-28ee-437c-be39-6f4cbecced7b","slug":"ruth-polaco-v-jorge-polaco-3354261","title":"Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358729/polaco-v-polaco-no-fa95-0129767-may-15-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358729","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-05-15","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: inor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the entry of judgment. VERTEFEUILLE, J."}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr. Date: 1996-03-21. Machine-draft public headnote: Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defendant's benefit and the plaintiff shall be designated as irrevocable beneficiary. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have to any interest the defendant has or should have in the proceeds of the estate of the defendant's mother, Sophie K. Pagano. The plaintiff shall transf"}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: the plaintiff, except the personal clothing and effects of the defendant, his CT Page 2227 guns, his tools and the living room set and the bedroom set that were given to the parties from the estate of the defendant!s mother. All bank accounts and individual retirement accounts shall be given to the plaintiff as her sole property, except any account the defendant might have in his credit union, which account shall remain the sole property of the defendant. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have in any pension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastenin"}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ement accounts shall be given to the plaintiff as her sole property, except any account the defendant might have in his credit union, which account shall remain the sole property of the defendant. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have in any pension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defend"}
{"id":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"a081515b-34c5-4843-bcc9-4477bee74fa6","slug":"sally-pagano-v-frederick-a-pagano-jr-3335166","title":"Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3339656/pagano-v-pagano-no-fa95-04-97-95-mar-21-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3339656","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-21","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","public_employee_retirement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: A KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defendant's benefit and the plaintiff shall be designated as irrevocable beneficiary. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have to any interest the defendant has or should have in the proceeds of the estate of the defendant's mother, Sophie K. Pagano. The plaintiff shall transf"}
{"id":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31725823-99d1-4c3c-a9f7-6eb53d500e6f","slug":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592","title":"Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358060/kowal-v-kowal-no-fa93-04-44-37s-nov-7-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358060","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-07","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal Date: 1994-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31725823-99d1-4c3c-a9f7-6eb53d500e6f","slug":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592","title":"Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358060/kowal-v-kowal-no-fa93-04-44-37s-nov-7-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358060","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-07","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31725823-99d1-4c3c-a9f7-6eb53d500e6f","slug":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592","title":"Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358060/kowal-v-kowal-no-fa93-04-44-37s-nov-7-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358060","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-07","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: iod of time will give the defendant sufficient opportunity to learn other skills if she chooses or to further herself in the restaurant business. B. PENSION The defendant wife shall be entitled to 30% of the present day value of the plaintiff's pension. A QDRO may be required to secure the defendant's interest in the plaintiff's pension. C. MEDICAL COVERAGE The defendant shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the plaintiff husband's employment for a period of three years or until the defendant obtains her own medical benefits whichever event first occurs. Plaintiff husband shall be oblig"}
{"id":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"31725823-99d1-4c3c-a9f7-6eb53d500e6f","slug":"samuel-robert-kowal-v-lynn-elaine-kowal-3353592","title":"Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3358060/kowal-v-kowal-no-fa93-04-44-37s-nov-7-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3358060","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-11-07","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: rties. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reconcile their differences. The court declines to assess the fault for the breakdown of the marital relationship to either party. The only issues raised by the parties had to do with alimony, the husband's pension and COBRA benefits. The following orders shall enter: A. ALIMONY The plaintiff husband shall pay to the defendant wife as alimony the sum of $200 per week until the death of the husband, the death of the wife, her remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute, or 13 years from date, whichever event shall first occur. A 13 year CT Page 11286 period"}
{"id":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d5ad778-a689-4ce3-9300-187e6587bb06","slug":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288","title":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335784/stern-v-stern-no-fa-000338962-aug-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern. Date: 2001-08-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d5ad778-a689-4ce3-9300-187e6587bb06","slug":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288","title":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335784/stern-v-stern-no-fa-000338962-aug-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d5ad778-a689-4ce3-9300-187e6587bb06","slug":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288","title":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335784/stern-v-stern-no-fa-000338962-aug-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: shall be paid from the Husband's 40% share of said funds, the further sum of $40,000.00 in recognition of the transfer by the wife to the husband of her interest in the marital home and to pay her current debts and her attorney's fees. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall accomplish this division. Said QDRO shall be drafted by the Wife's attorney or other qualified person. The Husband shall pay the cost for same. BANK ACCOUNTS — CHECKING AND SAVINGS CT Page 10923 Each party shall retain their checking and savings accounts listed on their respective financial affidavits. MISCELLANEOUS Each party shall sig"}
{"id":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d5ad778-a689-4ce3-9300-187e6587bb06","slug":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288","title":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335784/stern-v-stern-no-fa-000338962-aug-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: her financial affidavit. ATTORNEY FEES Except as otherwise provided herein, the parties shall each be solely responsible for their respective attorney's fees. TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2001 and thereafter. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, IRA ACCOUNTS, DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The Husband currently has an IRA with Dean Witter in the approximate amount of $5,030.00 and a TIAA Account in the approximate amount of $214,739.00. The approximate total of these two accounts is $219,679.99. The Husband acknowledges that he has expended $30,000.00 of other marital assets for his own expense"}
{"id":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7d5ad778-a689-4ce3-9300-187e6587bb06","slug":"sandra-stern-v-steven-stern-3331288","title":"Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335784/stern-v-stern-no-fa-000338962-aug-13-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335784","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-08-13","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: aid from the Husband's 40% share of said funds, the further sum of $40,000.00 in recognition of the transfer by the wife to the husband of her interest in the marital home and to pay her current debts and her attorney's fees. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall accomplish this division. Said QDRO shall be drafted by the Wife's attorney or other qualified person. The Husband shall pay the cost for same. BANK ACCOUNTS — CHECKING AND SAVINGS CT Page 10923 Each party shall retain their checking and savings accounts listed on their respective financial affidavits. MISCELLANEOUS Each party shall sig"}
{"id":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d5e45d-83f6-4e46-9dff-5083c6df2767","slug":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683","title":"Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357152/weitlauf-v-weitlauf-no-0546604-jun-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357152","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf Date: 1999-06-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d5e45d-83f6-4e46-9dff-5083c6df2767","slug":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683","title":"Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357152/weitlauf-v-weitlauf-no-0546604-jun-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357152","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"42d5e45d-83f6-4e46-9dff-5083c6df2767","slug":"sandra-weitlauf-v-james-weitlauf-3352683","title":"Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3357152/weitlauf-v-weitlauf-no-0546604-jun-9-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3357152","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-09","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","post_judgment_enforcement","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of said property. The defendant shall pay $6,000.00 on the taxes owed on the property. The plaintiff shall make reasonable efforts to remove the defendant from the note and mortgage on said property within one year. 2. The plaintiff shall receive by way of QDRO 40% of the defendant's military and disability pensions. The defendant shall name the plaintiff as survivor beneficiary on said pensions. 3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff alimony of $1 per week for a period of ten years. Said alimony shall be modifiable as to amount but not as to term. 4. The plaintiff shall keep as her own the 1979 Mercedes"}
{"id":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c54e8ea-b99b-4cb3-91ec-63219288a95f","slug":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552","title":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362018/caginelli-v-caginelli-no-fa92-0127196-s-nov-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362018","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli Date: 1993-11-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c54e8ea-b99b-4cb3-91ec-63219288a95f","slug":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552","title":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362018/caginelli-v-caginelli-no-fa92-0127196-s-nov-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362018","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c54e8ea-b99b-4cb3-91ec-63219288a95f","slug":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552","title":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362018/caginelli-v-caginelli-no-fa92-0127196-s-nov-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362018","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e date of dissolution the amount of $215,000. Said monies shall be transferred from the husband's stocks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay"}
{"id":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c54e8ea-b99b-4cb3-91ec-63219288a95f","slug":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552","title":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362018/caginelli-v-caginelli-no-fa92-0127196-s-nov-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362018","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: ks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay during his lifetime to the wife until her death, remarriage, or cohabitation under th"}
{"id":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2c54e8ea-b99b-4cb3-91ec-63219288a95f","slug":"sarah-cagninelli-v-giovan-caginelli-3357552","title":"Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362018/caginelli-v-caginelli-no-fa92-0127196-s-nov-1-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362018","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-11-01","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: dissolution the amount of $215,000. Said monies shall be transferred from the husband's stocks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay"}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea. Date: 2002-10-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: 0.00 0.00 Webster Bk CD 0.00 13,510.00 Husband's IRA 24,113.00 0.00 Wife's IRA's (3) 0.00 16,138.00 Husband's 401k 1,093.00 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $86,820.00 $231,341.00 RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband's pension at AFSCME shall be equally divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) effective on today's date. The Wife, within a reasonable period of time, shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at her expense and the Husband shall fully cooperate in the processing. Until approved by the plan administrator, the court shall retain jurisdiction. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts listed on their respec"}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ems (H) 2,800.00 Household Furnish./personal items (W) 2,800.00 Prudential Stocks (H) 1,500.00 Savings Bonds (H) 40,000.00 Webster Bk CD's (4)(J) 13,510.00 CT Page 13882 Prudential Ins. CSV (H) 1,714.00 IRA (H) 24,113.00 IRA (3)(W) 16,138.00 401k (H) 1,093.00 Pension (H) value unknown 0.00 Checking (H) 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $318,161.00 It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle the many causes for the breakdown of this marriage which is clearly irretrievable. The Wife claimed that the Husband had, and continues to have, an affaire with a Virginia resident named Nancy Dowdy. The Husband truthfully acknowledged the rel"}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): rnish./personal items (H) 2,800.00 Household Furnish./personal items (W) 2,800.00 Prudential Stocks (H) 1,500.00 Savings Bonds (H) 40,000.00 Webster Bk CD's (4)(J) 13,510.00 CT Page 13882 Prudential Ins. CSV (H) 1,714.00 IRA (H) 24,113.00 IRA (3)(W) 16,138.00 401k (H) 1,093.00 Pension (H) value unknown 0.00 Checking (H) 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $318,161.00 It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle the many causes for the breakdown of this marriage which is clearly irretrievable. The Wife claimed that the Husband had, and continues to have, an affaire with a Virginia resident named Nancy Dowdy. The Husband truthfully"}
{"id":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"686eb486-472d-4234-8bdf-ca9782a286ef","slug":"sharon-a-d-andrea-v-nicholas-d-andrea-3344253","title":"Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348735/dandrea-v-dandrea-no-fa01-66725s-oct-28-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348735","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-10-28","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: Webster Bk CD 0.00 13,510.00 Husband's IRA 24,113.00 0.00 Wife's IRA's (3) 0.00 16,138.00 Husband's 401k 1,093.00 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $86,820.00 $231,341.00 RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband's pension at AFSCME shall be equally divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) effective on today's date. The Wife, within a reasonable period of time, shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at her expense and the Husband shall fully cooperate in the processing. Until approved by the plan administrator, the court shall retain jurisdiction. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts listed on their respec"}
{"id":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e04ddd-3d7d-48d7-860e-c23d410ca585","slug":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168","title":"Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355641/koepfli-v-koepfli-no-fa99-0066268s-jul-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355641","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli. Date: 2000-07-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e04ddd-3d7d-48d7-860e-c23d410ca585","slug":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168","title":"Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355641/koepfli-v-koepfli-no-fa99-0066268s-jul-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355641","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e04ddd-3d7d-48d7-860e-c23d410ca585","slug":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168","title":"Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355641/koepfli-v-koepfli-no-fa99-0066268s-jul-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355641","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ective savings/checking accounts, money market accounts and federal credit union accounts as set forth on their CT Page 8374 respective financial affidavits. PENSIONS 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension, to be secured by a QDRO to be prepared at the plaintiff's expense. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's TSA Fidelity pension and 50% of the plaintiff's YNHHS pension, to be secured by QDRO's and to be prepared at the defendant's expense. MEDICAL COVERAGE The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the defendant's employm"}
{"id":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"15e04ddd-3d7d-48d7-860e-c23d410ca585","slug":"sharon-koepfli-v-kenneth-koepfli-3351168","title":"Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3355641/koepfli-v-koepfli-no-fa99-0066268s-jul-17-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3355641","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-17","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ll be entitled to their respective savings/checking accounts, money market accounts and federal credit union accounts as set forth on their CT Page 8374 respective financial affidavits. PENSIONS 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension, to be secured by a QDRO to be prepared at the plaintiff's expense. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's TSA Fidelity pension and 50% of the plaintiff's YNHHS pension, to be secured by QDRO's and to be prepared at the defendant's expense. MEDICAL COVERAGE The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available throug"}
{"id":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26d0f75b-9549-48f5-bac5-c20a97c144ef","slug":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194","title":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338687/laska-v-laska-no-fa95-0146535-s-mar-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338687","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska Date: 1996-03-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Laska v. Less Laska is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26d0f75b-9549-48f5-bac5-c20a97c144ef","slug":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194","title":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338687/laska-v-laska-no-fa95-0146535-s-mar-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338687","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26d0f75b-9549-48f5-bac5-c20a97c144ef","slug":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194","title":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338687/laska-v-laska-no-fa95-0146535-s-mar-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338687","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: o the plaintiff a promissory note in that amount secured by a second mortgage on the Norwalk residence, payable, without interest, when the residence is sold or January 1, 2002, whichever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts a"}
{"id":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26d0f75b-9549-48f5-bac5-c20a97c144ef","slug":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194","title":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338687/laska-v-laska-no-fa95-0146535-s-mar-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338687","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts are scheduled on their respective affidavits. The defendant is awarded all right, title and interest in his boat. 10. The parties shall retain their respe"}
{"id":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"26d0f75b-9549-48f5-bac5-c20a97c144ef","slug":"sharon-laska-v-less-laska-3334194","title":"Sharon Laska v. Less Laska","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338687/laska-v-laska-no-fa95-0146535-s-mar-22-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338687","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-03-22","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","post_judgment_enforcement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ntiff a promissory note in that amount secured by a second mortgage on the Norwalk residence, payable, without interest, when the residence is sold or January 1, 2002, whichever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts a"}
{"id":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c71cbe1f-7256-4b52-96e7-bb799b81184d","slug":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689","title":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332189/layte-v-layte-no-fa-98-84414-sep-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332189","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-09-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte Date: 1998-09-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Layte v. John Layte is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c71cbe1f-7256-4b52-96e7-bb799b81184d","slug":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689","title":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332189/layte-v-layte-no-fa-98-84414-sep-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332189","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-09-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c71cbe1f-7256-4b52-96e7-bb799b81184d","slug":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689","title":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332189/layte-v-layte-no-fa-98-84414-sep-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332189","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-09-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ere be set over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the plaintiff as an allowance to prosecute which the court feels appropriate in order to maintain the solidarity of the plaintiff's financial situation as ordered by the court herein. CT Page 10620 It is so or"}
{"id":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c71cbe1f-7256-4b52-96e7-bb799b81184d","slug":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689","title":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332189/layte-v-layte-no-fa-98-84414-sep-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332189","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-09-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: plaintiff one-half of the real estate taxes accrued on the family home in the present total outstanding amount of $3,721.10, one-half being $1,860.00. The court orders that there be set over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the pl"}
{"id":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"c71cbe1f-7256-4b52-96e7-bb799b81184d","slug":"sharon-layte-v-john-layte-3327689","title":"Sharon Layte v. John Layte","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3332189/layte-v-layte-no-fa-98-84414-sep-14-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3332189","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-09-14","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the plaintiff as an allowance to prosecute which the court feels appropriate in order to maintain the solidarity of the plaintiff's financial situation as ordered by the court herein. CT Page 10620 It is so or"}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger Docket: 1 THE LOWER. Date: 2000-07-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pellant argues that the court abused its discretion in awarding appellee virtually all of the liquid marital assets, while awarding appellant virtually all of the non-liquid assets. Appellant argues that the court should have divided the pension by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and the division of the pension violated the non-revokable beneficiary term of the pension plan. Appellant did not offer the terms of the plan into evidence at trial. The only evaluation of the pension was provided by appellee, with no objection from appellant. Appellant cannot now argue that the court violated the terms of the pension plan when he"}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ERRED IN MAKING ITS MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION BY AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO PLAINTIFF WHILE AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL NON-LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO DEFENDANT, AND IN SO DOING, VIOLATED THE NONREVOCABLE BENEFICIARY TERM OF DEFENDANT'S PENSION FUND. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY IGNORING PLAINTIFF'S INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES WHEN IT INCREASED ITS SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD TO PLAINTIFF, THEREBY INCREASING PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR THIS INCREASE. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY MISTATING [SIC] THE ORIGINS"}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: gues that the court abused its discretion in awarding appellee virtually all of the liquid marital assets, while awarding appellant virtually all of the non-liquid assets. Appellant argues that the court should have divided the pension by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and the division of the pension violated the non-revokable beneficiary term of the pension plan. Appellant did not offer the terms of the plan into evidence at trial. The only evaluation of the pension was provided by appellee, with no objection from appellant. Appellant cannot now argue that the court violated the terms of the pension plan when he"}
{"id":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6e122b39-1963-480f-96f1-eca34011ab46","slug":"shirley-ann-rininger-v-eugene-paul-rininger-3693900","title":"Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3945601/rininger-v-rininger-unpublished-decision-7-24-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3945601","extracted_docket_number":"1 THE LOWER","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-24","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","present_value","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: mmon Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, granting the parties a divorce, dividing marital assets, and awarding appellee Shirley Ann Rininger spousal support: ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING ITS MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION BY AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO PLAINTIFF WHILE AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL NON-LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO DEFENDANT, AND IN SO DOING, VIOLATED THE NONREVOCABLE BENEFICIARY TERM OF DEFENDANT'S PENSION FUND. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY IGNORING PLAINTIFF'S INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES WHEN IT INCREASED ITS SPOUSAL SU"}
{"id":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8140612-6029-4a65-84df-87ebda7dce51","slug":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419","title":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331918/mcgrath-v-mcgrath-no-534240s-dec-12-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331918","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-12","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath Date: 1996-12-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8140612-6029-4a65-84df-87ebda7dce51","slug":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419","title":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331918/mcgrath-v-mcgrath-no-534240s-dec-12-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331918","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-12","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8140612-6029-4a65-84df-87ebda7dce51","slug":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419","title":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331918/mcgrath-v-mcgrath-no-534240s-dec-12-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331918","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-12","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: h Griffin for any debt due from the defendant. (C) The vehicles belonging to the plaintiff shall remain her property. (D) The plaintiff shall be entitled to $206.05 per month of the defendant's pension and the defendant is ordered to execute the necessary QDRO documents to effectuate this. (This represents 50% of the pension accrued during the course of the marriage. See defendant's Exhibit 2.) (E) The defendant shall retain as his sole property the land and mobile home in Okeechobee, Florida, the $19,000 savings and checking accounts at the Sun Bank in Florida and remainder of his pension and annuity. (F) De"}
{"id":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8140612-6029-4a65-84df-87ebda7dce51","slug":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419","title":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331918/mcgrath-v-mcgrath-no-534240s-dec-12-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331918","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-12","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: he recent past and which has an equity of approximately $20,000.00, various personal property consisting primarily of tools, metal inventory and equipment valued at $7,625.00, and lastly he has a sheetmetal worker's Local 38 annuity valued at $37,132.00 and a pension present value of $28,722.00. A considerable amount of the pension however accrued prior to the marriage and according to an expert witness in defendant's Exhibit 2, the accrued monthly benefit CT Page 7252 due when the defendant husband reaches the age of 62 for the period covered by the marriage, would be $412.10 per month. After reviewing all of the fac"}
{"id":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"b8140612-6029-4a65-84df-87ebda7dce51","slug":"shirley-e-mcgrath-v-john-mcgrath-3327419","title":"Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331918/mcgrath-v-mcgrath-no-534240s-dec-12-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331918","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-12-12","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff Shirley E. McGrath commenced this action claiming a dissolution of her marriage to the defendant John McGrath, and equitable distribution of the parties property, both real and personal, temporary and permanent alimony, counsel fees and restoration of her former name, together with such other relief as the court deemed fair and equitable. The defendant John McGrath filed an answer and cross complaint and in his cross complaint he sought a dissolution of the marriage, return of personal prop"}
{"id":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"427bfaf2-13e4-4796-af8f-38d07a7f14fc","slug":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053","title":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348535/silverbrook-ii-v-wpca-town-of-orange-no-fa96-134763s-dec-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348535","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange Date: 1999-12-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"427bfaf2-13e4-4796-af8f-38d07a7f14fc","slug":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053","title":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348535/silverbrook-ii-v-wpca-town-of-orange-no-fa96-134763s-dec-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348535","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"427bfaf2-13e4-4796-af8f-38d07a7f14fc","slug":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053","title":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348535/silverbrook-ii-v-wpca-town-of-orange-no-fa96-134763s-dec-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348535","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: upport for the minor children until each child graduates from high school or turns 19 years of age, whichever event occurs first. The defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff's husband's pension from the Hershey Co. by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to preparation thereof. Defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff husband's pension from the Johnson Johnson Company by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to the pre"}
{"id":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"427bfaf2-13e4-4796-af8f-38d07a7f14fc","slug":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053","title":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348535/silverbrook-ii-v-wpca-town-of-orange-no-fa96-134763s-dec-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348535","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: l to the remaining amount to be paid as support for the minor children until each child graduates from high school or turns 19 years of age, whichever event occurs first. The defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff's husband's pension from the Hershey Co. by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to preparation thereof. Defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff husband's pension from the Johnson Johnson Company by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsibl"}
{"id":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"427bfaf2-13e4-4796-af8f-38d07a7f14fc","slug":"silverbrook-ii-llc-v-water-pollution-control-authority-of-the-town-of-orange-3344053","title":"Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348535/silverbrook-ii-v-wpca-town-of-orange-no-fa96-134763s-dec-27-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348535","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-12-27","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): yment at Johnson Johnson and is currently employed there at a gross wage of $60,000 plus annually. The defendant is employed at Petco as a retail sales employee with an annual gross wage of approximately $13,000.00. Plaintiff had accumulated a substantial 401K account at Peter Paul Hershey which was in the amount of $75,528.77; which he unilaterally withdrew incurring a tax and penalty which consumed $36,292.93 of the proceeds or almost half of the total amount. The balance of said proceeds were spent during the plaintiff's unemployment period. No portion of this was allocated to the defendant's benefit. The co"}
{"id":"sims-v-sims-4539754::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67d5d112-3e01-464a-bae3-770c5bb7ffdd","slug":"sims-v-sims-4539754","title":"Sims v. Sims","citation":"2020 ND 110","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759407","extracted_docket_number":"20190248","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 110","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Sims v. Sims Citation: 2020 ND 110. Extracted reporter citation: 2020 ND 110. Docket: 20190248. Date: 2020-06-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Sims v. Sims is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"sims-v-sims-4539754::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67d5d112-3e01-464a-bae3-770c5bb7ffdd","slug":"sims-v-sims-4539754","title":"Sims v. Sims","citation":"2020 ND 110","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759407","extracted_docket_number":"20190248","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 110","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"sims-v-sims-4539754::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67d5d112-3e01-464a-bae3-770c5bb7ffdd","slug":"sims-v-sims-4539754","title":"Sims v. Sims","citation":"2020 ND 110","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759407","extracted_docket_number":"20190248","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 110","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: month in child support, and $1,013 per month of Larry Sims' military retirement. The court found Erica Sims has the ability to work full time and increase her monthly income, she will immediately receive a portion of Larry Sims' retirement, she will have the retirement accounts in her name, and she is receiving the majority of the value of the marital estate. The court found Erica Sims sacrificed her military career and some of her earning ability, but her sacrifice was mitigated by the fact that she earned multiple educational degrees during the marriage. The court found Erica Sims alleged $6,100 in monthly living expenses, she"}
{"id":"sims-v-sims-4539754::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67d5d112-3e01-464a-bae3-770c5bb7ffdd","slug":"sims-v-sims-4539754","title":"Sims v. Sims","citation":"2020 ND 110","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759407","extracted_docket_number":"20190248","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 110","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"survivor benefits: ettlement agreement in the judgment. She contends the parties stipulated to include an indemnification clause necessary to protect her interest in Larry Sims' military retirement and that Larry Sims would continue coverage for her as a former spouse under his Survivor Benefit Plan. [¶29] The relevant portion of the stipulation states: Erica shall be awarded a percentage of Larry's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty (50) percent times a fraction, the numerator of which is nineteen (19) years of marriage during Larry's creditable military service, divided by Larry's total number of years of"}
{"id":"sims-v-sims-4539754::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"67d5d112-3e01-464a-bae3-770c5bb7ffdd","slug":"sims-v-sims-4539754","title":"Sims v. Sims","citation":"2020 ND 110","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4759407/sims-v-sims/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4759407","extracted_docket_number":"20190248","extracted_reporter_citation":"2020 ND 110","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2020-06-02","citation_year":2020,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","military_retirement","present_value","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: receive a child support deviation for the transportation costs. They agreed to decision making responsibility for the children and the amount of Larry Sims' child support obligation. They agreed on some of the property and debt distribution and agreed to the valuation date for their property and debts. [¶10] After a court trial on the remaining issues, the district court distributed the martial estate. The court awarded Erica Sims a net property award of $73,453.82, including the marital home. The court awarded Larry Sims a net property award of $6,583.16. The court denied Erica Sims' request for spousal support. The court o"}
{"id":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17519b21-dafe-445e-8ba0-119afefe7218","slug":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743","title":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348226/czaplicki-v-czaplicki-no-fa-95-0465213-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348226","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki Date: 1997-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17519b21-dafe-445e-8ba0-119afefe7218","slug":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743","title":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348226/czaplicki-v-czaplicki-no-fa-95-0465213-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348226","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17519b21-dafe-445e-8ba0-119afefe7218","slug":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743","title":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348226/czaplicki-v-czaplicki-no-fa-95-0465213-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348226","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: me medical problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page 38-B The court further finds that, subsequent to the parties separation agreement in 1982 the defendant wife proposed to the plaintiff husband that she, the wife, transfer her property known as 110 Allen Street, Terryville, Connecticut to their son, Andrzej, provided the plaintiff husband paid to her, the defendant wife, one-half the value of the"}
{"id":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17519b21-dafe-445e-8ba0-119afefe7218","slug":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743","title":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348226/czaplicki-v-czaplicki-no-fa-95-0465213-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348226","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: ong as each of the caretakers live or until Danek's death, whichever comes first. The parties shall provide each other with copies of the checks or receipts evidencing the monies paid for Danek's benefit. Each party is 61 years old, each is employed and has pension rights through their respective employment, each has some medical problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page"}
{"id":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"17519b21-dafe-445e-8ba0-119afefe7218","slug":"stanislaw-czaplicki-v-eufemia-czaplicki-3343743","title":"Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348226/czaplicki-v-czaplicki-no-fa-95-0465213-s-jan-22-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348226","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-01-22","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page 38-B The court further finds that, subsequent to the parties separation agreement in 1982 the defendant wife proposed to the plaintiff husband that she, the wife, transfer her property known as 110 Allen Street, Terryville, Connecticut to their son, Andrzej, provided the plaintiff husband paid to her, the defendant wife, one-half the value of the"}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"State v. Huether Citation: 2010 ND 233. Extracted reporter citation: 2010 ND 233. Docket: 20100178. Date: 2010-12-02. Machine-draft public headnote: State v. Huether is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Scott A. Hager, 1715 Burnt Boat Drive, Madison Ste., Bismarck, ND 58503, for defendant and appellant. Hunt v. Hunt No. 20100178 VandeWalle, Chief Justice. [¶1] June Hunt appealed from a divorce judgment awarding her 25% of her ex- husband's retirement accounts, but reducing her award by a restitution obligation owed to her ex-husband after being convicted of setting fire to his mobile home. We affirm, concluding the district court did not clearly err in its division of the retirement accounts. I. [¶2] June and Brett Hunt married in 1999 and had no children together. Brett Hunt filed for divorce in 2008"}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e in 2008. June and Brett Hunt entered into a partial stipulation for divorce decree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about their relationship, their prope"}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): Brett Hunt filed for divorce in 2008. June and Brett Hunt entered into a partial stipulation for divorce decree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about the"}
{"id":"state-v-huether-898878::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"11e9ca2a-44cc-4ad7-b03b-85d4c3f4e084","slug":"state-v-huether-898878","title":"State v. Huether","citation":"2010 ND 233","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/898878/state-v-huether/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"898878","extracted_docket_number":"20100178","extracted_reporter_citation":"2010 ND 233","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2010-12-02","citation_year":2010,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: cree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about their relationship, their property, and the retirement accounts. [¶3] At the time of trial, Brett Hunt was 56 years old and"}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke. Date: 1991-02-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's"}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, amended, as fol"}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,"}
{"id":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7184a2a3-7027-474d-8933-c6692b720b36","slug":"susan-h-fricke-v-noel-e-fricke-3331289","title":"Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335785/fricke-v-fricke-no-fa-89-0367764-s-feb-22-1991/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335785","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1991-02-22","citation_year":1991,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","alternate_payee"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"alternate payee: on/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, amended, as follows: 1. The Participant is Noel E. Fricke, 50 Fox Den Rd., West Simsbury, CT. Payee is Susan H. Fricke, 44 Old Mill Court, Simsbury, CT. The Alternate Payee and the Participant were married on February 29, 1972. 2. The Participant assigns to the Altern"}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy Docket: 1 is awarded to the defendant. B. Date: 2000-02-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: rdered to quitclaim to the plaintiff all of his right, title and interest in the family home located in Danbury, Connecticut, by March 1, 2000. 3. The defendant is ordered to elect the 50 percent joint and survivor with leveling under his pension plan and a QDRO is to be prepared with the plaintiff responsible for its preparation. 4. All of the defendant's interest in properties at 49 Fisher Hill Road, Mineville, New York; 299 Maple Lane, Clinton Corners, New York; and Bridge Road, Crown Point, New York, are awarded to the defendant. CT Page 1521 5. The 1999 Subaru, the 1969 Chevrolet, the 1990 Geo Prism, and t"}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: gery in 1993 and had lung surgery three months later for cancer. He suffers from asthma and emphysema. The defendant was employed by IBM when the parties married. He retired in August of 1991, and elected a joint and survivorship option with leveling on his retirement plan. He has had minimum earnings since his retirement. He had been earning in the low $40,000 salary range between the time the parties married and the time he retired. He was 62 years old when he retired. CT Page 1518 Under the joint and survivorship 50 percent option with leveling, the defendant received $1610.68 monthly from the date of retirement until ag"}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: r the joint and survivorship 50 percent option with leveling, the defendant received $1610.68 monthly from the date of retirement until age 65 on April 23, 1995. Commencing April 23, 1995, he receives $600.68 monthly. The present value to the defendant of his pension benefits is $71,000. The present value of the plaintiff's interest in that pension plan is $36,980. The defendant was employed at IBM for a total of twenty-three years, during which time the parties were married a total of approximately seventeen months or a coverture of 6.8 percent. The defendant owns a 1999 Subaru with a present value of $20,000 and a l"}
{"id":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1b55227f-2f82-4f4a-9e0d-910ca5e2df4b","slug":"suzanne-a-murphy-v-robert-j-murphy-3357650","title":"Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362116/murphy-v-murphy-no-fa98-0331962-s-feb-2-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362116","extracted_docket_number":"1 is awarded to the defendant. B","extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-02-02","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: from a prior employer. She rolled over approximately $2000 to $2050 into this fund. ORDERS This court has considered the provision of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony and has considered the provision of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. No alimony is awarded in favor of either party. C. BY WAY"}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew. Date: 2002-01-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: l be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R. Donnelly Sons 401 k Plan"}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: permitted to retain possession of the residence. (c) The amount, if any, of credits that shall be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relat"}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: e husband is permitted to retain possession of the residence. (c) The amount, if any, of credits that shall be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Q"}
{"id":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"caaa4e42-82c6-4d69-b29a-1499a96c82d4","slug":"teresa-m-drew-v-steven-r-drew-3354552","title":"Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3359020/drew-v-drew-no-fa-01-0181713-s-jan-23-2002/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3359020","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2002-01-23","citation_year":2002,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): s Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R. Donnelly Sons 401 k Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (c) Each party shall retain their own Fleet IRA. (d) The husband shall transfer an amount necessary to equalize the parties' AMEX IRA accounts, utilizing values as of the date of transfer. (e) The Court shall retain jurisdiction as to who shall bear the cost for the preparation of the QUADROS. THE PLAI"}
{"id":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a4f9aba-6399-4ed5-8217-bc18a7f54dad","slug":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150","title":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348632/situ-v-situ-no-32-40-30-oct-30-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348632","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-30","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ Date: 1997-10-30. Machine-draft public headnote: Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a4f9aba-6399-4ed5-8217-bc18a7f54dad","slug":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150","title":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348632/situ-v-situ-no-32-40-30-oct-30-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348632","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-30","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a4f9aba-6399-4ed5-8217-bc18a7f54dad","slug":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150","title":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348632/situ-v-situ-no-32-40-30-oct-30-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348632","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-30","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Suzuki shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 6. The court awards to the plaintiff 25 percent of the defendant's Amphenol pension plan benefits to which the defendant is entitled as of the date he retires. This award is by QDRO, and the court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the CT Page 10898 language thereof. The court also awards to the plaintiff 50 percent of the defendant's pension plan benefits in Kimberly Clark to which the defendant is entitled as of the date he retires. The defendant is ordered to elect a joint and survivorship option under that plan. The a"}
{"id":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a4f9aba-6399-4ed5-8217-bc18a7f54dad","slug":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150","title":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348632/situ-v-situ-no-32-40-30-oct-30-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348632","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-30","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: sted in: one is with Amphenol; the second is with Kimberly Clark. The normal retirement age for the defendant's pension plan with Amphenol is sixty-five on March 13, 2016. His full pension benefits at age sixty-five will be $186.88 per month. He may apply for retirement benefits as early as age fifty-five, and his benefits would then be actuarially reduced. Under the Kimberly Clark pension plan he will receive, at age sixty-five, monthly benefits of $192.83. If he elects to receive his pension benefit on April 1, 2006, he will receive $126.14 a month. He left Amphenol as a result of a general layoff. He did not elect a survivorshi"}
{"id":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"1a4f9aba-6399-4ed5-8217-bc18a7f54dad","slug":"teresa-situ-v-hector-d-situ-3344150","title":"Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3348632/situ-v-situ-no-32-40-30-oct-30-1997/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3348632","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1997-10-30","citation_year":1997,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","survivor_annuity","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: hen out of work for almost one year until January of 1980. She then went to work for Amphenol. She remained there until June of 1988. She left in order to earn more money. If she had remained there for an additional fourteen months, she would be vested in its pension plan. After Amphenol, she went to work for a doctor, commencing June 17, 1988, as a secretary/assistant. She also was working cleaning houses and cleaning rooms at a local motel. She also earned approximately $900 in 1981 and 1982 selling crystal over an approximate six to seven month period of time. She terminated CT Page 10893 her employment with the doct"}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett Date: 1992-05-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: le and interest in the mobile home to the wife. 8. As a property distribution, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000.00 within ninety (90) days of this decree. 9. The wife is awarded 40 percent of the plaintiff's pension benefit by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 10. Each of the parties shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs as well as their liabilities. 11. Except as otherwise provided, each of the parties shall retain ownership of all properties presently in their possession and in their name. CT Page 4868 MIHALAKOS, J."}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: eived $75,541.00. (See Exhibit A.) There remains approximately $41,000.00 of these funds which have been invested in stocks. He also inherited $50,000.00 from his parents' estate. Defendant's Exhibit 5 also indicates that as of April 29, 1992, the husband's retirement account has a lump sum value of $19,601.00. Taking into consideration all of the testimony and the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes, Secs. 46b-81 , 46b-82 and 46b-84 , the court orders as follows: CT Page 4867 1. A decree of dissolution may enter. 2. The sum of $2,250.97 is owed to the State of Connecticut, which is the amount the husband shall be r"}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: husband is presently unemployed and collects $288.00 unemployment compensation plus $106.00 per week in rental and dividend income. He owns a home jointly with his girl friend and has additional stock in the amount of approximately $40,000.00. He also has a pension plan which he claims will pay him approximately $500.00 per month at age fifty-five (55). Other than the mobile home in which she lives, and which is jointly owned with the husband, the wife has no other assets of significant value. From the testimony presented, the court could reasonably find that since the separation in 1987, the husband has paid appr"}
{"id":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"6075b7e4-4c82-45e3-92e7-cb824f8ebb6a","slug":"terry-a-barrett-v-penelope-h-barrett-3357896","title":"Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3362361/barrett-v-barrett-no-30-15-52-may-22-1992/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3362361","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1992-05-22","citation_year":1992,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: erest in the mobile home to the wife. 8. As a property distribution, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000.00 within ninety (90) days of this decree. 9. The wife is awarded 40 percent of the plaintiff's pension benefit by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 10. Each of the parties shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs as well as their liabilities. 11. Except as otherwise provided, each of the parties shall retain ownership of all properties presently in their possession and in their name. CT Page 4868 MIHALAKOS, J."}
{"id":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bbf9a07-2c7b-48e9-97d4-721d6b539b0e","slug":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe","title":"The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents","citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3162524/the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-v-leon-snow-v-the-estate-of/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3162524","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-12-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"summary","text":"The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents Citation: 26 N.Y.3d 466. Extracted reporter citation: 26 N.Y.3d 466. Date: 2015-12-15. Machine-draft public headnote: The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bbf9a07-2c7b-48e9-97d4-721d6b539b0e","slug":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe","title":"The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents","citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3162524/the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-v-leon-snow-v-the-estate-of/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3162524","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-12-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0bbf9a07-2c7b-48e9-97d4-721d6b539b0e","slug":"the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-interpleader-plaintiff-v-leon-snow-et-al-appe","title":"The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents","citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3162524/the-ministers-and-missionaries-benefit-board-v-leon-snow-v-the-estate-of/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3162524","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"26 N.Y.3d 466","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2015-12-15","citation_year":2015,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":2,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: t-of-laws principles and statutory choice-of-law directives, unless the parties expressly indicate otherwise. I. Plaintiff Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board (MMBB) is a New York not-for-profit corporation, based in New York County, that administers a retirement plan and a death benefit plan for certain ministers and missionaries. Decedent Clark Flesher was a minister enrolled in both plans. He named his then-wife, defendant LeAnn Snow, as his primary beneficiary and her father, defendant Leon Snow, as the contingent beneficiary. Both plans state that they \\shall be governed by"}
{"id":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0829289d-073f-4e7f-aa40-447aa7f1ae2a","slug":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812","title":"The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4326551/people-v-thompson/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4326551","extracted_docket_number":"1 and No. 4 would be excluded. According to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-12-01","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant Citation: 1 Cal. 5th 1043. Extracted reporter citation: 1 Cal. 5th 1043. Docket: 1 and No. 4 would be excluded. According to the trial. Date: 2016-12-01. Machine-draft public headnote: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0829289d-073f-4e7f-aa40-447aa7f1ae2a","slug":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812","title":"The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4326551/people-v-thompson/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4326551","extracted_docket_number":"1 and No. 4 would be excluded. According to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-12-01","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"0829289d-073f-4e7f-aa40-447aa7f1ae2a","slug":"the-people-plaintiff-and-respondent-v-catherine-thompson-defendant-and-appellant-4103812","title":"The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant","citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4326551/people-v-thompson/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4326551","extracted_docket_number":"1 and No. 4 would be excluded. According to the trial","extracted_reporter_citation":"1 Cal. 5th 1043","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2016-12-01","citation_year":2016,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: 1101. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983 illustrates the point. In that case, the defendant and the victim dissolved their three-year marriage, but he still owed her $700 in child support arrearages and several thousand dollars in a division of their community property. In a trial for his ex-wife‘s murder, the prosecution presented evidence of his precarious financial situation. On the defendant‘s appeal following his conviction, we rejected his challenge to the admission of this financial evidence, explaining that while evidence of poverty is generally inadmissible to prove a motive for robbery or theft, ―[o]nce the debt"}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison Date: 1998-04-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: sponsible for the payment of the outstanding mortgage. 8. The parties shall divide equally the net equity from the sale of the condominium in Dallas, Texas. 9. The plaintiff's pension with Travelers shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant shall receive 50% of the current value of the pension benefit when the plaintiff retires. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft the QDRO and obtain approval by Travelers. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to CT Page 4785 ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benef"}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: in his condominium at 138 Woodside Green, Stamford, Connecticut and be solely responsible for the payment of the outstanding mortgage. 8. The parties shall divide equally the net equity from the sale of the condominium in Dallas, Texas. 9. The plaintiff's pension with Travelers shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant shall receive 50% of the current value of the pension benefit when the plaintiff retires. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft the QDRO and obtain approval by Travelers. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the ju"}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): in sole and exclusive ownership of his Travelers stock and Travelers stock options, both vested and unvested, listed on his financial affidavit dated March 19, 1998. 15. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant $235,000 of his interest in the Travelers 401K Plan listed on his financial affidavit dated March 19, 1998 by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the plaintiff shall retain sole ownership of the balance of that plan. The plaintiffs hall cooperate in executing any documents necessary to implement this order. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure comp"}
{"id":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"f56237c8-8156-49fe-b8df-b2845eec1172","slug":"thomas-f-morrison-iii-v-sharon-morrison-3330672","title":"Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335168/morrison-v-morrison-no-fa96-0149899-s-apr-2-1998/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335168","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1998-04-02","citation_year":1998,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","post_judgment_enforcement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: for the payment of the outstanding mortgage. 8. The parties shall divide equally the net equity from the sale of the condominium in Dallas, Texas. 9. The plaintiff's pension with Travelers shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant shall receive 50% of the current value of the pension benefit when the plaintiff retires. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft the QDRO and obtain approval by Travelers. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to CT Page 4785 ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benef"}
{"id":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ee78a25-6dfa-4ef5-bc6b-89c92c16684a","slug":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832","title":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335328/mcauley-v-mcauley-no-fa-98-0353090-s-jun-18-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335328","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-18","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley Date: 1999-06-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ee78a25-6dfa-4ef5-bc6b-89c92c16684a","slug":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832","title":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335328/mcauley-v-mcauley-no-fa-98-0353090-s-jun-18-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335328","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-18","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ee78a25-6dfa-4ef5-bc6b-89c92c16684a","slug":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832","title":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335328/mcauley-v-mcauley-no-fa-98-0353090-s-jun-18-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335328","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-18","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: of this equitable division. The Husband is entitled, by stipulation of the parties, to a credit of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for money advanced during the trial. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife by tax free rollover or qualified domestic relations order all of his Goldman Sachs IRA. LIABILITIES Each party shall be responsible for their own liabilities as shown on their respective financial affidavits. The Husband shall be responsible for all pendente lite orders through June 30, 1999. COUNSEL FEES The Husband shall pay to the Wife as counsel fees the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) by Augus"}
{"id":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ee78a25-6dfa-4ef5-bc6b-89c92c16684a","slug":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832","title":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335328/mcauley-v-mcauley-no-fa-98-0353090-s-jun-18-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335328","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-18","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: uitable division. The Husband is entitled, by stipulation of the parties, to a credit of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for money advanced during the trial. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband shall transfer to the Wife by tax free rollover or qualified domestic relations order all of his Goldman Sachs IRA. LIABILITIES Each party shall be responsible for their own liabilities as shown on their respective financial affidavits. The Husband shall be responsible for all pendente lite orders through June 30, 1999. COUNSEL FEES The Husband shall pay to the Wife as counsel fees the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) by Augus"}
{"id":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"2ee78a25-6dfa-4ef5-bc6b-89c92c16684a","slug":"thomas-mcauley-v-kathryn-mcauley-3330832","title":"Thomas McAuley v. Kathryn McAuley","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3335328/mcauley-v-mcauley-no-fa-98-0353090-s-jun-18-1999/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3335328","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1999-06-18","citation_year":1999,"plan_legal_category":"QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":12,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: ere married on November 20, 1993, a total of five and one-half years. It was the first marriage for both. By complaint dated May 4, 1998, the Husband instituted this action claiming a dissolution of marriage, custody, an assignment of the marital residence, a property division, and other relief. The Wife did not file an Answer and Cross-Complaint until May 24, 1999 which was permitted by the court over the Husband's objection. In the Cross-Complaint she claims a dissolution of marriage, joint legal custody, an equitable distribution of assets, support, alimony, counsel and expert witness fees, and other relief. Numerous pendente"}
{"id":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bc1751-b25b-452b-80f9-9c813d03b9aa","slug":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653","title":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340142/silvis-v-silvis-no-fa98-67912-s-jul-11-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340142","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-11","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis. Date: 2000-07-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bc1751-b25b-452b-80f9-9c813d03b9aa","slug":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653","title":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340142/silvis-v-silvis-no-fa98-67912-s-jul-11-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340142","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-11","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bc1751-b25b-452b-80f9-9c813d03b9aa","slug":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653","title":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340142/silvis-v-silvis-no-fa98-67912-s-jul-11-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340142","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-11","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: Ford Windstar. The parties shall hold each other harmless from the costs associated with their own vehicles. 10. State of Connecticut Retirement: The plaintiff shall assign one half of the present value of his retirement policy to the defendant through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 11. Tax Exemptions: The plaintiff shall claim Daniel as an exemption on his federal tax returns and the defendant shall claim Renee and Lauren as tax exemptions. In the event, however, the dependency exemption is of no financial value to the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the exemption. The defendant shall notify the plaintiff on before"}
{"id":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bc1751-b25b-452b-80f9-9c813d03b9aa","slug":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653","title":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340142/silvis-v-silvis-no-fa98-67912-s-jul-11-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340142","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-11","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): interest in the marital home known as 72 Florida Road, Somers, Connecticut to the defendant. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from all liability in connection with said property, including the remaining mortgage, taxes and insurance. 8. Aetna 401K Plan: CT Page 8092 The plaintiff shall transfer fifty percent interest in this asset to the defendant. 9. Automobiles: The plaintiff shall have the 1993 Pontiac Bonneville and the 1968 Ford Mustang. The defendant shall the 1995 Ford Windstar. The parties shall hold each other harmless from the costs associated with their own vehicles. 10. State of"}
{"id":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"e6bc1751-b25b-452b-80f9-9c813d03b9aa","slug":"timothy-silvis-v-marlene-silvis-3335653","title":"Timothy Silvis v. Marlene Silvis.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3340142/silvis-v-silvis-no-fa98-67912-s-jul-11-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3340142","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-07-11","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"ERISA / defined contribution issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","erisa","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: star. The parties shall hold each other harmless from the costs associated with their own vehicles. 10. State of Connecticut Retirement: The plaintiff shall assign one half of the present value of his retirement policy to the defendant through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 11. Tax Exemptions: The plaintiff shall claim Daniel as an exemption on his federal tax returns and the defendant shall claim Renee and Lauren as tax exemptions. In the event, however, the dependency exemption is of no financial value to the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the exemption. The defendant shall notify the plaintiff on before"}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr. Date: 1996-09-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: tion of defendant's support and alimony obligations as herein set forth. Defendant shall provide plaintiff with proper authorization for her to ascertain whether said policies are in full force and effect. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) one-half of the present accrued value of defendant's employment pension. The plaintiff shall be named survivor beneficiary of the pension benefits in the event defendant dies prior to his retirement and the commencement of his benefits. 9. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $175 as periodic alimony until defendant's support obligat"}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: The parties purchased their marital residence located at and known as 14 Morse Avenue, Groton, Connecticut around 1981. Presently the home has a value between $95,000 and $100,000 and is subject to mortgages totalling $84,000 to $86,000. The defendant has a retirement account with Vitro Corp, which is valued at $13,890.83 as of July, 31, 1996. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A.) The plaintiff has an IRA of $1,100 and a retirement plan with the Groton Board of Education presently valued at $3,000. The parties also own a 1989 Volvo 240 DL and a 1986 Ford F150, several bank and credit union accounts and life insurance policies. From the evi"}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: with proper authorization for her to ascertain whether said policies are in full force and effect. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) one-half of the present accrued value of defendant's employment pension. The plaintiff shall be named survivor beneficiary of the pension benefits in the event defendant dies prior to his retirement and the commencement of his benefits. 9. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $175 as periodic alimony until defendant's support obligation for his minor child is terminated. Thereafter, defendant shall pay to the p"}
{"id":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"7b86860a-a83d-44af-893d-f5b8be6dd2ee","slug":"tonya-durnall-v-willard-h-durnall-sr-3333326","title":"Tonya Durnall v. Willard H. Durnall, Sr.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3337821/durnall-v-durnall-no-108812-sep-11-1996/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3337821","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1996-09-11","citation_year":1996,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: fendant's support and alimony obligations as herein set forth. Defendant shall provide plaintiff with proper authorization for her to ascertain whether said policies are in full force and effect. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) one-half of the present accrued value of defendant's employment pension. The plaintiff shall be named survivor beneficiary of the pension benefits in the event defendant dies prior to his retirement and the commencement of his benefits. 9. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $175 as periodic alimony until defendant's support obligat"}
{"id":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5facec92-0537-4b9d-9cbe-1659651c3351","slug":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873","title":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345358/sicilian-v-sicilian-no-fa-99-0359679-apr-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345358","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian. Date: 2000-04-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5facec92-0537-4b9d-9cbe-1659651c3351","slug":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873","title":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345358/sicilian-v-sicilian-no-fa-99-0359679-apr-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345358","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5facec92-0537-4b9d-9cbe-1659651c3351","slug":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873","title":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345358/sicilian-v-sicilian-no-fa-99-0359679-apr-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345358","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: RETIREMENT ASSETS The Wife is awarded one-half of the Husband's Prudential Insurance Company pension, including survivors benefits, earned between the date of CT Page 5085-lc the marriage to the date of dissolution. Said award is to be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared at the Husband's expense and certified by both counsel. The court will reserve jurisdiction to resolve any disputes concerning this order: LIABILITIES Each party shall be liable for the debts shown on their respective financial affidavits. All pendente lite orders are to be made current through the dissolution of marriage date. COUNSEL"}
{"id":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5facec92-0537-4b9d-9cbe-1659651c3351","slug":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873","title":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345358/sicilian-v-sicilian-no-fa-99-0359679-apr-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345358","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: kly income of $1,000.00, but in his testimony, he revealed an income of $5,000.00 per month for this year. The court finds he has an income capacity of at least $60,000.00 per year. At the time of the marriage, the Husband had a Prudential Insurance Company pension which started accruing on June 30, 1980. Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 indicates that said pension would pay him $1,369.95 per month at age 65. It is also of note that the Wife received a gift of $50,000.00 from her grandfather which was used to purchase a residence. Her mother, who was a real estate agent, acted as broker on the purchase and sale of the first resi"}
{"id":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"5facec92-0537-4b9d-9cbe-1659651c3351","slug":"victoria-sicilian-v-john-a-sicilian-3340873","title":"Victoria Sicilian v. John A. Sicilian.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3345358/sicilian-v-sicilian-no-fa-99-0359679-apr-20-2000/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3345358","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2000-04-20","citation_year":2000,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ENT ASSETS The Wife is awarded one-half of the Husband's Prudential Insurance Company pension, including survivors benefits, earned between the date of CT Page 5085-lc the marriage to the date of dissolution. Said award is to be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to be prepared at the Husband's expense and certified by both counsel. The court will reserve jurisdiction to resolve any disputes concerning this order: LIABILITIES Each party shall be liable for the debts shown on their respective financial affidavits. All pendente lite orders are to be made current through the dissolution of marriage date. COUNSEL"}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward Date: 1994-03-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ll retain the 1991 Toyota Camry in her possession. Within 90 days after the date of this dissolution, one-half of the balance currently deposited in the plaintiffs 401K program, through Stanley-Bostitch, shall be withdrawn and paid to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said balance is approximately $6,080.00. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party shall retain any monies currently held in his or her name alone. Neither party shall make any claim to the checking or savings accounts of the other, nor shall either party make any claim to any monies which the other party may receive as the result of any accident o"}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: mployees, with the defendant as the irrevocable, sole beneficiary of all the proceeds of said policy. The court determines that it has provided for the defendant' support after the plaintiffs retirement and makes no provisions or allocations of any employee pension due the plaintiff. Each party shall be responsible for their own counsel fees. A decree may enter on the defendants cross-complaint dissolving the marriage and incorporating the aforesaid orders and awards therein. SPALLONE STATE TRIAL REFEREE Judgment Entered in Accordance with Foregoing Memorandum of Decision. Michael Kokoszka, Chief Clerk"}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): husband shall retain the 1991 Isuzu motor vehicle presently in his possession and the wife shall retain the 1991 Toyota Camry in her possession. Within 90 days after the date of this dissolution, one-half of the balance currently deposited in the plaintiffs 401K program, through Stanley-Bostitch, shall be withdrawn and paid to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said balance is approximately $6,080.00. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party shall retain any monies currently held in his or her name alone. Neither party shall make any claim to the checking or savings accounts of the"}
{"id":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"900a092c-4eb3-4ff0-b8d7-d886434f55cd","slug":"wayne-steward-v-beverly-steward-3341932","title":"Wayne Steward v. Beverly Steward","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3346416/steward-v-steward-no-fa-70157-s-mar-16-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3346416","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-03-16","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: the 1991 Toyota Camry in her possession. Within 90 days after the date of this dissolution, one-half of the balance currently deposited in the plaintiffs 401K program, through Stanley-Bostitch, shall be withdrawn and paid to the wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Said balance is approximately $6,080.00. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party shall retain any monies currently held in his or her name alone. Neither party shall make any claim to the checking or savings accounts of the other, nor shall either party make any claim to any monies which the other party may receive as the result of any accident o"}
{"id":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37b7db0c-9059-49d6-bd01-80ba822ece5b","slug":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033","title":"Westwood v. Darnell","citation":"299 Neb. 612","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514780/westwood-v-darnell/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514780","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"299 Neb. 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-04-13","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Westwood v. Darnell Citation: 299 Neb. 612. Extracted reporter citation: 299 Neb. 612. Date: 2018-04-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Westwood v. Darnell is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37b7db0c-9059-49d6-bd01-80ba822ece5b","slug":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033","title":"Westwood v. Darnell","citation":"299 Neb. 612","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514780/westwood-v-darnell/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514780","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"299 Neb. 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-04-13","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37b7db0c-9059-49d6-bd01-80ba822ece5b","slug":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033","title":"Westwood v. Darnell","citation":"299 Neb. 612","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514780/westwood-v-darnell/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514780","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"299 Neb. 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-04-13","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: Westwood and Darnell were both employed by the Nebraska Department of Correctional - 614 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports WESTWOOD v. DARNELL Cite as 299 Neb. 612 Services. Both earned comparable salaries and had premarital retirement accounts to which they continued to contribute after they married. Household expenses were split equally. Westwood quit her job in March 2015. Shortly thereaf- ter, she withdrew $75,393.04 from her retirement account. After taxes, penalties, and fees, the sum of $51,999.99 was deposited in the parties' joint bank account. The couple then paid off outstanding marit"}
{"id":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"37b7db0c-9059-49d6-bd01-80ba822ece5b","slug":"westwood-v-darnell-4292033","title":"Westwood v. Darnell","citation":"299 Neb. 612","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4514780/westwood-v-darnell/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4514780","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":"299 Neb. 612","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2018-04-13","citation_year":2018,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":11,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports WESTWOOD v. DARNELL Cite as 299 Neb. 612 Jennifer Westwood, appellant, v. Cheryl A. Darnell, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 13, 2018. No. S-17-538. 1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In a marital dissolution action, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. This standard of review applies to the trial court's determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and atto"}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer Date: 1995-07-11. Machine-draft public headnote: William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: n taxes due from a sale of the premises. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 60 percent of the present monthly value of the pension benefits of CT Page 8474 plaintiff's vested pension with General Dynamics Corporation, plaintiff's employer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (4) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the value of plaintiff's 401K plan as of the date of this decree by QDRO. (5) The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the QDROs until accomplished. (6) The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $1,500 for her attorney's fees. (7) The plaintiff shall keep his 1989 Toyota."}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: T Page 8472 During the marriage, plaintiff has managed to accumulate an SSIP savings of $92,418, IRA trust account of $22,295, an IRA Charter Oak FCU of $2,129, bank accounts of $5,571, and a 1989 Toyota valued at $2,000. In addition, plaintiff has a vested pension at General Dynamics which will pay him $717 per month at age 65, if he ceases employment with General Dynamics now, and $2,540 per month at 65, if plaintiff is employed by General Dynamics at that age. The plaintiff is without any significant debts. The defendant, who is approximately 48 years of age, had been employed at Riverview Hospital in June 1994 d"}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): f the pension benefits of CT Page 8474 plaintiff's vested pension with General Dynamics Corporation, plaintiff's employer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (4) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the value of plaintiff's 401K plan as of the date of this decree by QDRO. (5) The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the QDROs until accomplished. (6) The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $1,500 for her attorney's fees. (7) The plaintiff shall keep his 1989 Toyota. (8) The defendant shall keep her 1993 Toyota. (9) The defendant's maiden name is restored to her."}
{"id":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"39204db4-0a72-420e-a435-2742c9168b3b","slug":"william-d-shaffer-v-macy-w-shaffer-3325777","title":"William D. Shaffer v. MacY W. Shaffer","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3330279/shaffer-v-shaffer-no-531887-jul-11-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3330279","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-07-11","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e from a sale of the premises. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 60 percent of the present monthly value of the pension benefits of CT Page 8474 plaintiff's vested pension with General Dynamics Corporation, plaintiff's employer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (4) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the value of plaintiff's 401K plan as of the date of this decree by QDRO. (5) The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the QDROs until accomplished. (6) The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $1,500 for her attorney's fees. (7) The plaintiff shall keep his 1989 Toyota."}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw Date: 1995-01-24. Machine-draft public headnote: William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: dant, or her remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute. 2. Said award of alimony shall commence on February 1, 1995. PENSIONS AND IRAs 1. The defendant shall be entitled to a 50% interest in the plaintiff's GTE pension to be secured by means of a QDRO. CT Page 324 2. The defendant shall be entitled to a 50% interest in the present value of the plaintiff's Marsh McLennan pension, to be secured by means of a QDRO. 3. The defendant shall retain her IRAs and any interest she may have in any pension or retirement plan through her employment. 4. The plaintiff shall transfer $5000 from his IRA to the defe"}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: QDRO. CT Page 324 2. The defendant shall be entitled to a 50% interest in the present value of the plaintiff's Marsh McLennan pension, to be secured by means of a QDRO. 3. The defendant shall retain her IRAs and any interest she may have in any pension or retirement plan through her employment. 4. The plaintiff shall transfer $5000 from his IRA to the defendant's IRA. OTHER PROPERTY 1. The defendant shall retain her interest in the Rene Place property in Fairfield, Connecticut. 2. The plaintiff shall retain his O'Day sailboat and shall be solely responsible for the outstanding loan thereon. 3. Each party shall be"}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: dit cards and joint account which she used for the children. After the institution of this dissolution, the plaintiff gave the defendant $600 per week for her own use. The plaintiff has a gross income of approximately $145,000 per year. He has a 401(K), a pension plan and a stock purchase plan which generates some additional income, as set forth in his financial affidavit. The defendant is earning approximately $43,000 per year gross. Her net income is approximately $2350 per month. The major asset of the parties and the major bone of contention between the parties is the marital home. The home has a fair market"}
{"id":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"73df7dba-73ad-40b8-9ab9-ffc72da2b81e","slug":"william-e-armshaw-v-stephanie-armshaw-3327115","title":"William E. Armshaw v. Stephanie Armshaw","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3331614/armshaw-v-armshaw-no-fa94-04-66-12-jan-24-1995/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3331614","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1995-01-24","citation_year":1995,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","401k","present_value"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"401(k): to the credit cards and joint account which she used for the children. After the institution of this dissolution, the plaintiff gave the defendant $600 per week for her own use. The plaintiff has a gross income of approximately $145,000 per year. He has a 401(K), a pension plan and a stock purchase plan which generates some additional income, as set forth in his financial affidavit. The defendant is earning approximately $43,000 per year gross. Her net income is approximately $2350 per month. The major asset of the parties and the major bone of contention between the parties is the marital home. The home has a"}
{"id":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ada7d3fe-8e48-4435-b0b5-f7842d68185a","slug":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732","title":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374191/buonocore-v-buonocore-no-0903629-jun-10-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374191","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-06-10","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore Date: 1993-06-10. Machine-draft public headnote: William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ada7d3fe-8e48-4435-b0b5-f7842d68185a","slug":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732","title":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374191/buonocore-v-buonocore-no-0903629-jun-10-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374191","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-06-10","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ada7d3fe-8e48-4435-b0b5-f7842d68185a","slug":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732","title":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374191/buonocore-v-buonocore-no-0903629-jun-10-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374191","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-06-10","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: ot later than six months from the date of this judgment. 12. The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant immediately one-half of his retirement savings account, estimated to be $20,000; therefore, the transfer amount is approximately $10,000.00. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order may issue provided the plaintiff fails to immediately comply with this order. 13. The plaintiff may retain his pension without sharing it with the defendant. 14. The plaintiff shall provide Blue Cross, Blue Shield, CMS or their equivalent for the minor children, and he shall pay one-half of all unreimbursed medical, surgical, hospital, optical, psychiat"}
{"id":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ada7d3fe-8e48-4435-b0b5-f7842d68185a","slug":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732","title":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374191/buonocore-v-buonocore-no-0903629-jun-10-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374191","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-06-10","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: irement savings account, estimated to be $20,000; therefore, the transfer amount is approximately $10,000.00. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order may issue provided the plaintiff fails to immediately comply with this order. 13. The plaintiff may retain his pension without sharing it with the defendant. 14. The plaintiff shall provide Blue Cross, Blue Shield, CMS or their equivalent for the minor children, and he shall pay one-half of all unreimbursed medical, surgical, hospital, optical, psychiatric, psychological and nursing expenses and half of the unreimbursed costs of prescription drugs, and dental and orthodon"}
{"id":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"ada7d3fe-8e48-4435-b0b5-f7842d68185a","slug":"william-f-buonocore-v-marion-g-buonocore-3369732","title":"William F. Buonocore v. Marion G. Buonocore","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3374191/buonocore-v-buonocore-no-0903629-jun-10-1993/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3374191","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1993-06-10","citation_year":1993,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: han six months from the date of this judgment. 12. The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant immediately one-half of his retirement savings account, estimated to be $20,000; therefore, the transfer amount is approximately $10,000.00. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order may issue provided the plaintiff fails to immediately comply with this order. 13. The plaintiff may retain his pension without sharing it with the defendant. 14. The plaintiff shall provide Blue Cross, Blue Shield, CMS or their equivalent for the minor children, and he shall pay one-half of all unreimbursed medical, surgical, hospital, optical, psychiat"}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss Date: 1994-04-28. Machine-draft public headnote: William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: pt as stated hereinafter), the real estate described as No. 20 Beechwood Boulevard, Norwich, Connecticut, subject to all encumbrances thereon which he shall pay and save the defendant harmless therefrom. (4) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the sum of $1,000 from his SSIP. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this transfer to ensure compliance with applicable law. (5) The plaintiff shall own, take and have, free of any claims of the defendant, the contents of the Norwich home, CT Page 4588 his motor vehicle, his bank accounts, his SSIP (except for the transfer ordered above) and"}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"retirement benefits: re compliance with applicable law. (5) The plaintiff shall own, take and have, free of any claims of the defendant, the contents of the Norwich home, CT Page 4588 his motor vehicle, his bank accounts, his SSIP (except for the transfer ordered above) and his retirement plan. (6) The defendant shall own, take and have, free of any claims of the plaintiff, her mother's inheritance, her motor vehicle, and the personal property now in her possession. (7) Each shall pay the liabilities shown on their respective financial affidavits. (8) The plaintiff shall execute and deliver a promissory note secured by a third mortgage on t"}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: se and may have added $5,000 in cash. The court believes the house had to be worth in the area of $60,000 at the time of purchase and has appreciated only $20,000. The husband also has an SSIP account worth $5,000 which is taxable upon withdrawal, and an EB pension which is vested and would provide a monthly benefit of $460.77 upon his retirement at age 65. The wife has an inheritance of $4,300 from her mother's estate. They each have motor vehicles of modest value. The wife accumulated over $6,000 from her earnings as of late 1992, which she termed the `window fund' The money was intended for new windows in the fam"}
{"id":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391::evidence_quote::3","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"19253ff6-46ac-4b4a-9ab2-b2343a8fe904","slug":"william-j-barss-v-colleen-a-barss-3366391","title":"William J. Barss v. Colleen A. Barss","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3370851/barss-v-barss-no-103585-apr-28-1994/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3370851","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"1994-04-28","citation_year":1994,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","public_employee_retirement"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: ed hereinafter), the real estate described as No. 20 Beechwood Boulevard, Norwich, Connecticut, subject to all encumbrances thereon which he shall pay and save the defendant harmless therefrom. (4) The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the sum of $1,000 from his SSIP. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this transfer to ensure compliance with applicable law. (5) The plaintiff shall own, take and have, free of any claims of the defendant, the contents of the Norwich home, CT Page 4588 his motor vehicle, his bank accounts, his SSIP (except for the transfer ordered above) and"}
{"id":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a08267-4ecb-4071-ba81-b80992456824","slug":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354","title":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338847/storey-v-storey-no-0116939-sep-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey. Date: 2001-09-25. Machine-draft public headnote: William Storey v. Suzanne Storey. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a08267-4ecb-4071-ba81-b80992456824","slug":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354","title":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338847/storey-v-storey-no-0116939-sep-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a08267-4ecb-4071-ba81-b80992456824","slug":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354","title":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338847/storey-v-storey-no-0116939-sep-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"QDRO: e, from the injuries he sustained during the marriage, shall be divided equally between the parties. 10. Relative to plaintiff's Teamster Pension, the plaintiff shall elect the 75% Husband and Wife Pension Plan. See Teamster's Pension Booklet in the file. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be executed to provide this benefit to the defendant. Said document shall be prepared immediately by defendant's attorney. The defendant shall be designated the survivor beneficiary of said pension if the plan permits it. Plaintiff shall cooperate with defendant's attorney in the execution of such documents. The court will retain jurisdiction of thi"}
{"id":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354::evidence_quote::1","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a08267-4ecb-4071-ba81-b80992456824","slug":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354","title":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338847/storey-v-storey-no-0116939-sep-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"pension: sulting from his employment at Hendel Petroleum Company in 1993. This seriously limited his ability to engage in gainful employment. He is presently receiving a non-taxable Social Security Disability of $256.00 per week and a non-taxable Teamster's disability pension which pays him $98.00 per week. At age 64 plaintiff will be entitled to a monthly benefit of $1,391.00 from his Teamster's pension. Plaintiff instituted a worker's compensation claim for the cardiomyopathy he claims he incurred from his employment at Hendel Petroleum Company. On April 4, 2000 the plaintiff entered into a stipulation concerning his worke"}
{"id":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354::evidence_quote::2","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"14a08267-4ecb-4071-ba81-b80992456824","slug":"william-storey-v-suzanne-storey-3334354","title":"William Storey v. Suzanne Storey.","citation":null,"citation_is_placeholder":true,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3338847/storey-v-storey-no-0116939-sep-25-2001/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"3338847","extracted_docket_number":null,"extracted_reporter_citation":null,"court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2001-09-25","citation_year":2001,"plan_legal_category":"pension / defined benefit issues","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","pension","beneficiary_dispute"],"relevance_total":15,"strict_qdro_relevance":5,"retirement_division_relevance":5,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"domestic relations order: e injuries he sustained during the marriage, shall be divided equally between the parties. 10. Relative to plaintiff's Teamster Pension, the plaintiff shall elect the 75% Husband and Wife Pension Plan. See Teamster's Pension Booklet in the file. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be executed to provide this benefit to the defendant. Said document shall be prepared immediately by defendant's attorney. The defendant shall be designated the survivor beneficiary of said pension if the plan permits it. Plaintiff shall cooperate with defendant's attorney in the execution of such documents. The court will retain jurisdiction of thi"}
{"id":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340::summary::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9713b44d-3ac5-49b4-9358-4ffc332be272","slug":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340","title":"Willprecht v. Willprecht","citation":"2021 ND 17","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4857561/willprecht-v-willprecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4857561","extracted_docket_number":"20200195","extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 ND 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-02-18","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"summary","text":"Willprecht v. Willprecht Citation: 2021 ND 17. Extracted reporter citation: 2021 ND 17. Docket: 20200195. Date: 2021-02-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Willprecht v. Willprecht is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet."}
{"id":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340::holding::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9713b44d-3ac5-49b4-9358-4ffc332be272","slug":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340","title":"Willprecht v. Willprecht","citation":"2021 ND 17","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4857561/willprecht-v-willprecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4857561","extracted_docket_number":"20200195","extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 ND 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-02-18","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"holding","text":"Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case."}
{"id":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340::evidence_quote::0","corpus_version":"public_v0","document_id":"9713b44d-3ac5-49b4-9358-4ffc332be272","slug":"willprecht-v-willprecht-4661340","title":"Willprecht v. Willprecht","citation":"2021 ND 17","citation_is_placeholder":false,"source_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4857561/willprecht-v-willprecht/","source_host":"courtlistener.com","source_opinion_id":"4857561","extracted_docket_number":"20200195","extracted_reporter_citation":"2021 ND 17","court":null,"jurisdiction":"US","state_code":null,"date_published":"2021-02-18","citation_year":2021,"plan_legal_category":"family-law retirement/property division context","topic_terms":["qualified_domestic_relations_order","present_value"],"relevance_total":8,"strict_qdro_relevance":1,"retirement_division_relevance":2,"family_law_relevance":5,"kind":"evidence_quote","text":"valuation/division: for its decision. Id. Property distribution and spousal support are interrelated and often must be considered together. Id. at ¶ 40. [¶8] In the district court's original findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, it concluded: \"As with property division, the Court must consider the Ruff- Fischer Guidelines in making its determination of spousal support. The parties were 42 and 45 years of age respectively, at the date of the hearing. Both parties are healthy. Kevin's drinking appears to 3 be the root cause of the demise of this near 20-year marriage. Although, the parties accumulated farm assets dur"}